M 



li 



' m 



i LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 



)^ 



S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. I 



THE 

CANON 

OF THE 

OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS 

ASCERTAINED, 

OR 

THE BIBLE COMPLETE 

WITHOUT THE 

APOCRYPHA AND UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 



A NEW EDITION, 

iB,thisiil3 for tfjc l^xtsl^tnidirt Boarir of ^uilUatiott. 



■ BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, D.D. 

Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, 
No. 265 CHESTNUT STREET. 



t)54t 
■A4 



fT 



Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851, 

By a. W. Mitchell, M. D. 

In the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the 
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 



Stereotyped by Slote & Mooney, Philadelphia. 
Printed by W m. S. M a r t i e n. 



CONTENTS. 



PART. I. 

PAGE 

Introduction — The importance of ascertaining the true 
Canon of the Holy Scriptures, 9 

SECTION I. 
Early use and import of the word Canon, - ------ 17 

SECTION II. 

Constitution of the Canon of the Old Testament by Ezra — 
The Canon of the Old Testament as it now exists, sanc- 
tioned by Christ and his Apostles — Catalogues of the books 
by some of the early Fathers — ^Agreement of Jews and 
Christians on this subject, -----------21 

SECTION III. 

Apocryphal books — Their origin — Importance of distinguish- 
ing between canonical and apocryphal books — Six books of 
the latter class pronounced canonical by the Council of 
Trent — Not in the Hebrew, nor received by the Jews, 
ancient or modern, -------------36 

SECTION IV. 

Testimonies of the Christian Fathers, and of other learned 
men, down to the time of the Council of Trent, respecting 
the Apocrypha, ---------------46 

SECTION V. 

Internal evidence that these books are not canonical — The 
writers not prophets, and do not claim to be inspired, - - 66 

SECTION VI. 
No canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost, - - 84 

SECTION VII. 
The Oral Law of the Jews without foundation, ----- 94 



PART II. 

SECTION I. 

Method of settling the Canon of the New Testament, - - - 113 

SECTION II. 
Catalogues of the books of the New Testament — Canonical 
books only cited as authority by the Fathers, and read in 

the churches as Scripture, 124 

(3) 



4 CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

SECTION in. 

Order of the books of the New Testament— Time of the gos- 
pels being written — Notice of the Evangelists, - . - - I44 
SECTION IV. 
Testimonies to Matthew's gospel — Time of publication — Lan- 
guage in which it was originally composed, ----- I54 

SECTION V. 
Gospel of Mark — On what occasion published — Ascribed to 
the dictation of Peter by all the Fathers, ----- -165 

SECTION VI. 
Gospel of Luke — Testimonies of the Fathers respecting it, - 173 

SECTION VII. 
The objections of J. D. Michaelis to the canonical authority 
of the gospels of Mark and Luke, considered and answered, 179 
SECTION VIII. 
The gospel of John — Life of this Evangelist — Occasion and 
time of his writing — Canonical authority indisputable, - - 192 
SECTION IX. 
The Acts of the Apostles — Luke the author — Canonical au- 
thority undisputed by the Fathers — Rejected only by 
heretics, ----------------- 208 

SECTION X. 

I'estimonies to the canonical authority of the fourteen epis- 
tles of Paul, 205 

SECTION XI. 
Canonical authority of the seven Catholic Epistles, . - - - 228 

SECTION XII. 
Canonical authority of the book of Revelation, ----- 236 

SECTION XIII. 
The titles given to the sacred Scriptures by the Fathers — 
These books not concealed, but partially known and refer- 
red to by enemies as well as friends — Citations — Ancient 
manuscripts — Remarks of Rennell, -------- 245 

SECTION XIV. 
No canonical book of the New Testament has been lost, - - 258 

SECTION XV. 
Rules for determining what books are Apocryphal — Some 
account of the Apocryphal books which have been lost — All 
of them condemned by the foregoing rules — Reason of the 
abounding of such books, ---------- -270 

SECTION XVI. 

Apocryphal books which are still extant — Letter of Abgarus, 

King of Edessa, to Jesus, and his answer — Epistle to the 

Ijaodiceans — Letters of Paul to Seneca — Protevangelion of 

James — The gospel of our Saviour's infancy — The Acts of 

Pilate— The Acts of Paul and Thecla, 281 

SECTION XVII. 
No part of the Christian Revelation handed down by un- 
written tradition, -------------- 301 

Appendix— Notes, 343 



PREFACE 



In this edition, the work has been carefully revised by the 
author, and many additions made to the testimonies adduced 
in the former editions; and also several important docu- 
ments not contained in the former editions have been placed 
in the appendix. Some alterations have also been made in 
particular passages, but not of sufficient importance to require 
specification. 

In the London edition of this work by the Rev. Doctor 
Morison, some complaint was made of the want of re- 
ferences sufficiently distinct, to the authors from which the 
testimonies have been taken. In most cases, the works from 
which they have been derived are mentioned; and in a 
popular treatise of this kind, which has more the character 
of a compilation than of a work of original research, it is 
not deemed important to burden the margin with many 
notes of reference; which indeed are seldom used when 

most abundant. 

1* (V) 



VI PREFACE. 

The author has freely availed himself of all the informa- 
tion within his reach ; but the authors to whom he is espe- 
cially indebted are, Cosins's Scholastic History of the Canon 
of the Old Testament — Joneses New Method of Settling the 
Canon of the New Testament — and Lardner^s Credibility 
of the Gospel History — The Isagoge of Buddasus — The The- 
saurus Philologicus of Hettinger, and Prideaux's Connection. 
Dr. Wordsworth^ s work on the Canon of the Old and New 
Testaments, and E-outh's Reliquice have also been consulted. 
Several valuable works on the Canon have been published 
in G-reat Britain, and also in this country, since the first 
edition of this work; but, though more valuable for the 
scholar, none of them, in the judgment of the author, are 
such as to supersede this as a popular treatise, which can 
be read with advantage by the unlearned as well as the 
learned. In a Scotch edition of this work, a copy of which 
the author has seen, there is an important error in giving 
the author's Christian name in the title page. Instead of 
Archibald, they have put Alexander ; making the first and 
second name the same. The only reason for mentioning 
this is, lest some doubt should hereafter arise respecting the 
genuine authorship of the volume. 

As the design of this work is to ascertain where the 
revelation of God is to be found, it is assumed usually 
that the whole of divine revelation has been committed to 
writing. But there are many under the Christian name 
who strenuously maintain, that an important part of the 



PREFACE. VU 

revealed will of God has been handed down through the 
Church by tradition. It therefore seemed necessary, in 
order to render the work complete, to examine the claims 
of tradition; in which the author has departed from the 
common method of treating this subject. And as the Jews, 
as well as the Romanists, pretend to have received an Oral 
LaWj handed down from Moses by tradition, a chapter has 
been devoted to this subject, and another to the traditions 
of the Church of Rome. 

As the inspiration of the gospels of Mark and Luke had 
been called in question by John David Michaelis and others, 
and the author could find no satisfactory answer to the 
objections of this learned writer, he felt it to be a duty to 
endeavour to vindicate these books of the New Testament, 
and to prove that they have a right to a place in the Canon ; 
where in fact they had always stood. And he has been 
gratified to learn that his arguments on this subject have 
received the approbation of learned and pious men. The 
Rev. Dr. T. H. Home has inserted the substance of 
them in his " Introduction to the New Testament," 
and the Rev. Richard Watson has extracted a part of 
them and inserted them in his Theological Dictionary. 

There never was a time when the friends of the Bible as 
an inspired volume had a more important duty to perform 
in its defence, than at the present. The assaults upon the 
plenary inspiration of the sacred Scriptures are, perhaps, 
more dangerous, because more plausible and insidious, than 



Vlll PREFACE. 

when divine inspiration is openly denied. On this subject 
the friends of revelation must be firm; and not yield an 
inch of the ground hitherto occupied by the orthodox. ^' If 
the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do ?" 
If this volume may be in any measure useful in the 
defence of divine revelation, the author will not regret the 
labour bestowed upon it. With an humble prayer for its 
success he commits it to the Christian public. 

A. Alexander. 
Princetorij N. J!, Jan. 1, 1851. 



INTRODUCTION. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF ASCERTAININO THE TRUE CANON 
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. 

The Bible includes a large number of separate books, 
published in different ages, during a space of more 
than fifteen hundred years. Each of these books 
when first published formed a volume; or at least, 
the writings of each author were, in the beginning, 
distinct; and if they had continued in that separate 
form, and had been transmitted to us in many vo- 
lumes instead of one, their authority would not, on 
this account, have been less, nor their usefulness di- 
minished. Their collection into one volume is merely 
a matter of convenience ; and if any persons choose 
now to publish these books in a separate form, they 
cannot with propriety be charged with casting any 
indignity on the word of God. 

Hence it appears that besides general arguments 
to demonstrate that the Bible contains a divine revela- 
tion, there is need of special proofs to evince that 
each of the books now included in that sacred volume, 
has a right to the place which it occupies ; or does in 
reality contain a part of that revelation which God 
has given. 

If, therefore, it could be shown (which however it 
never can) that some particular book, now included in 

(9) 



10 INTRODUCTION. 

the Bible, is not authentic, the conclusion thence 
derived would only affect that single production ; unless 
it were recognized as divine by the writers of the other 
books. The credit of the whole volume would not be 
destroyed, even if it could be proved that one half 
the books of w^hich it consists are spurious. Infidels 
have much more to effect in overthrowing the Bible 
than they commonly suppose. It is incumbent on 
them to demonstrate, not only that this or that book 
is false, but that every one of these productions is 
destitute of evidence, that it has been derived from 
the inspiration of God. 

On the other hand, it is manifest that the advocate 
of divine revelation is bound to defend the claims of 
every separate portion of this volume ; or to reject 
from it that part which has no evidence of a divine 
origin. It is necessary that he should be able to ren- 
der a good reason why he admits any particular book, 
to form a part of the inspired volume. 

It is true that the antiquity of this collection claims 
for it a high degree of respect. The transmission of 
this volume to us, through so many centuries, as Holy 
Scripture, should teach us to be cautious how we 
question what is so venerable for its antiquity. But 
this only furnishes one presumptive argument in favour 
of each book. It by no means renders all further 
investigation unnecessary ; much less, impious. 

It is easy to conceive that books not written by the 
inspiration of God, might, by some casualty or mis- 
take, find a place in the sacred volume. In fact, we 
have a striking example of this very thing, in the 
Greek and Latin Bibles which are now in use, and held 
to be sacred by a large majority of those who are de- 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

nominated Christians. These Bibles, besides the books 
which have evidence of being truly inspired, contain 
a number of other books, the claim of which to inspi- 
ration cannot be sustained by solid and satisfactory 
reasons. This inquiry, therefore, is far from being 
one of mere curiosity : it is in the highest degree prac- 
tical^ and concerns the conscience of every man capa- 
ble of making the investigation. We agree, in the 
general, that the Bible is the word of God, and an 
authoritative rule ; but the momentous question imme- 
diately presents itself. What belongs to the Bible ? Of 
what books does this sacred volume consist ? And it 
will not answer, to resolve to take it as it has come 
down to us, without further inquiry ; for the Bible has 
come down to us, in several different forms. The Vul- 
gate Latin Bible, which alone was m use for hundreds 
of years before the era of the Reformation, and also 
the Greek version of the Old Testament, contain many 
books not in the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures. 
Now, to determine which of these contains the whole 
of the inspired books given to the Jews before the 
advent of Christ and no more, requires research and 
accurate examination. The inquiry, therefore, is not 
optional, but forces itself upon every conscientious 
man; for as no one is at liberty to reject from the 
sacred volume one sentence, much less a whole book, 
of the revelation of God, so no one has a right to 
add anything to the word of God; and of conse- 
quence, no one may receive as divine what others have, 
without authority, added to the Holy Scriptures. 
Every man, therefore, according to his opportunity 
and capacity, is under a moral obligation to use his 
best endeavours to ascertain what books do, really, and 



12 INTKODUCTION. 

of right, belong to the Bible. An error here, on either 
side, is dangerous ; for, on the one hand, if we reject 
a part of divine revelation, we dishonour God, and 
deprive ourselves of the benefit which might be de- 
rived from that portion of divine truth; and on the 
other hand, we are guilty of an equal offence, and may- 
suffer an equal injury, by adding spurious productions 
to the Holy Scriptures; for thus we adulterate and 
poison the fountain of life, and subject our consciences 
to the authority of mere men. 

I think, therefore, that the importance and neces- 
sity of this inquiry must be evident to every person 
of serious reflection. But to some it may appear that 
this matter has been long ago settled on the firmest 
principles ; and that it can answer no good purpose to 
agitate questions, which have a tendency to produce 
doubts and misgivings in the minds of common Chris- 
tians, rather than a confirmation of their faith. In 
reply to the first part of this objection, I would say, 
that it is freely admitted that this subject has been 
ably and fully discussed long ago, and in almost every 
age until the present time; and the author aims at 
nothing more, in this short treatise, than to exhibit to 
the sincere inquirer, who may not enjoy better means 
of information, the subject of those discussions and 
proofs, which ought to be in the possession of every 
Christian. His object is not to bring forth anything 
new, but to collect and condense in a narrow space, 
what has been written by the judicious and the learned, 
on this important subject. But, that discussion tends 
to induce doubting is a sentiment unworthy of Chris- 
tians, who maintain that their religion is founded on 
the best reasons, and who are commanded 'Ho give to 



INTRODUCTION. 13 

every man a reason of the liope that is in them.'" That 
faith which is weakened by discussion is mere preju- 
dice, not true faith. They who receive the most im- 
portant articles of their religion upon trust from 
human authority, are continually liable to be thrown 
into doubt; and the only method of obviating this 
evil is to dig deep and lay our foundation upon a rock. 
If this objection had any weight, it would discourage 
all attempts to establish the truth of our holy religion 
by argument; and would also damp the spirit of free 
inquiry on every important subject. It is true, how- 
ever, that the first effect of free discussion may be to 
shake that easy confidence which most men entertain, 
that all their opinions are correct : but the beneficial 
result will be, that instead of a persuasion, having no 
other foundation than prejudice, it will generate a faith 
resting on the firm basis of evidence. 

There is, undoubtedly, among Christians, too great 
a disposition to acquiesce, without examination, in the 
religion of their forefathers. There is too great an 
aversion to that kind of research, which requires time 
and labour; so that many who are fully competent to 
examine the foundation on which their religion rests, 
never take the pains to enter on the investigation ; 
and it is to be regretted, that many who are much 
occupied with speculations on abstruse points of the- 
ology, waste the energies of their minds on subjects 
which can yield them no manner of profit, while they 
neglect entirely, or but superficially attend to, points 
of fundamental importance. 

The two great questions most deserving the atten- 
tion of all men, are : first, whether the Bible and all 
that it contains is from God : secondly, what are 
2 



14 INTRODUCTION. 

those truths which the Bible was intended to teach us. 
These two grand inquiries are sufficient to give occu- 
pation and vigorous exercise to intellectual faculties of 
the highest order ; and they are not removed entirely 
out of the reach of plain uneducated Christians. 
From the fountain of divine truth every one may 
draw according to his capacity. But these inquiries 
are neglected, not so much for want of time and capa- 
city, as because we take no pleasure in searching for 
and contemplating divine truth. Just in proportion 
as men love the truth and value the Bible, they will 
take an interest in all inquiries which relate to the 
authenticity, canonical authority, and correct inter- 
pretation of the sacred books. The time will come, I 
doubt not, when these studies will occupy the minds of 
thousands, where they now engage the attention of 
one. The Bible will grow into importance in the esti- 
mation of men, just in the same proportion as true 
religion flourishes. It will not only be the fashion 
to associate for printing and circulating the Holy 
Scriptures ; but it will become customary for men of 
the highest literary attainments, as well as others, to 
study the sacred pages with unceasing assiduity and 
prayer. And, in proportion as the Bible is understood 
in its simplicity and momentous import, the mere doc- 
trines of men will disappear ; and the dogmas of the 
schools and the alliance with philosophy being re- 
nounced, there will be among sincere inquirers after 
truth, an increasing tendency to unity of sentiment, 
as well as unity of spirit. The pride of learning and 
of intellect being sacrificed, and all distinctions counted 
but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of 
Christ, a thousand knotty questions, which now cause 



INTRODUCTION. 15 

divisions and gender strifes, will be forgotten ; and 
the wonder of our more enlightened posterity will be, 
how good men could have wasted their time and their 
talents in such unprofitable speculations ; and, more 
especially, how they could have permitted themselves 
to engage in fierce and unbrotherly contentions about 
matters of little importance. 

Then also men will no more neglect and undervalue 
the Scriptures, on pretence of possessing a brighter 
light within them, than that which emanates from the 
divine word. That spurious devotion which affects ^ 
superiority to external means and ordinances, will be 
exchanged for a simple, sincere reliance on the re- 
vealed will of God ; and those assemblies from which 
the sacred volume is now excluded, while the effusions 
of every heated imagination are deemed revelations 
of the Spirit, will become, under the influence of di- 
vine truth, churches of the living God. 

In those future days of the prosperity of Zion, the 
service of the most high God will be considered by 
men, generally, as the noblest employment ; and the 
best talents and attainments will be consecrated on the 
altar of God ; and the enterprises, and the la- 
bours which they now undertake to gratify an ava- 
ricious, ambitious, or voluptuous disposition, will be 
pursued from love to God and man. The merchant 
will plan, and travel, and traffic, to obtain the means 
of propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and pro- 
moting Christian knowledge at home ; yea, the com- 
mon labourer will cheerfully endure toil and privation, 
that he may have a mite to cast into the treasury of 
the Lord. 

Now, many consider all that is given to circulate 



16 INTRODUCTION. 

the Bible, and to send missionaries and tracts for the 
instruction of the ignorant, as so much wasted ; but 
then, all expenditures will be considered as profuse 
and wasteful, which terminate in mere selfish gratifi- 
cation ; and those funds will alone be reckoned useful, 
which are applied to promote the glory of God and the 
welfare of men. 

These, however, may appear to many as the visions 
of a heated imagination, which will never be realized ; 
but if the same change in the views and sentiments of 
men which has been going on for thirty years past, 
shall continue to advance with the same steady pace, 
half a century will not have elapsed from the present 
time, before such a scene will be exhibited to the ad- 
miring eyes of believers, as will fully justify the fore- 
going anticipations. 

But I have wandered wide of my subject — I will 
now recall the attention of the reader to the consid- 
eration of the exceeding great importance of ascer- 
taining the true Canon of Holy Scripture. This inves- 
tigation may, indeed, appear dry and unentertaining, 
but every thing which bears any relation to the great 
Charter of our privileges and our hopes, ought to be 
interesting to us. It has been my object, to bring 
this subject not only more conveniently within the 
reach of the theological student, but also to a level 
with the capacity of the common Christian. That 
this work may in some humble degree subserve the 
cause of the Bible, is the sincere prayer of 

THE AUTHOR. 



SECTION I. 



EARLY USE AND IMPORT OF THE WORD CANON. 

The word Canon properly signifies a 7'ule : and it is 
used in this sense several times in tlie New Testament, 
as Gal. vi. 16; "As many as walk according to this 
rule." Phil. iii. 16; "Let us walk by the same rule."'*' 
But in these passages there is no reference to the 
Scriptures as a volume. 

The word Canon, however, was early used by the 
Christian Fathers to designate the inspired Scriptures. 
Iren^us, speaking of the Scriptures, calls them "the 
Canon of truth." Clement of Alexandria, referring 
to a quotation of the gospel according to the Egyp- 
tians, says, "But they follow anything, rather than 
the true canonical gospels. "f 

EuSEBius says of Origen, "But in the first book of 
his commentaries on the gospel of Matthew, observing 
the ecclesiastical Canon, he declares that he knew of 
four gospels only." 

Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, speaks of three 
sorts of books ; the canonical — such as were allowed to. 

* The word Kavwv literally signifies a reed^ by which the di- 
mensions of anything were measured ; and hence it came figura- 
tively to signify a rule. 

The word was used by the Greek grammarians to designate 
those authors who were considered as authority in matters of 
criticism: Vid, Wordsworth on the Canon, p. 5. 

t Strom. Lib. iii. p. 453. 

2* (IT) 



18 EARLY USE OF THE WORD CANON. 

be read — and such as were Apocryphal. By the first 
he evidently means such as we now call canonical. 

The Council of Laodicea ordained, "that none but 
canonical books should be read in the church ; that is, 
the books of the Old and New Testaments." 

RxjEiN, after enumerating the books of the Old and 
New Testaments, goes on to mention three classes of 
books. 1. Such as were included in the Canon. 2. 
Ecclesiastical, or such as were allowed to be read. 3. 
Apocryphal, such as were not permitted to be publicly 
read.* 

Jerome often speaks of the Canon of Scripture, 
and mentions books which might be read, but did not 
belong to the Canon. f 

The third Council of Carthage ordained, "That 
nothing beside the canonical Scriptures be read in the 
church, under the name of the divine Scriptures." 

Augustine often makes mention of the canonical 
Scriptures, and the whole Canon of Scripture, meaning 
to designate all the sacred books of the Old and New 
Testaments. "We read of some," says he, "that they 
searched the Scriptures daily, whether these things 
were so. What Scriptures, I pray, except the canoni- 
cal Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To 
them have been since added, the Gospels, the Epistles 
of the Apostles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the 
Revelation of John. "J 

* Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, p. 26. 

After giving a catalogue both of the books of the Old and New 
Testaments, he says, " Ha?c sunt quae patres inter Canonem con- 
cluserunt." 

t Prolog. Gal. in multis locis. 

I De Doctrina Christiana^ vol. Hi. Lib. ii.pt. l,jp. 47. Ed. 
Paris. Epist. ad Hieron, Id. Ad Paulinum, 112. 



EARLY USE OF THE WORD CANON. 19 

Chrysostom says, ^' They fall into great absurdi- 
ties, who will not follow the Canon of the divine Scrip- 
ture, but trust to their own reasoning." 

Isidore of Pelusium observes, "That these things 
are so, we shall perceive, if we attend to the Canon of 
truth — the divine Scriptures." 

And Leontius of Constantinople, having cited the 
whole catalogue of the books of sacred Scripture, 
from Genesis to Revelation, concludes, " These are the 
ancient and the new books, which are received in the 
church as canonical." 

EuSEBius informs us that Origen, in his Exposition 
on Matthew, " enumerates the hooTcs of Scripture ac- 
cording to the Canon of the Church.'"'^ 

Epiphanius, speaking of certain heretics, says, 
" The^ received the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and 
Thomas, rejecting the Qanon received hy the Church.' '"f 

Philastrius speaks of the distinction of Canonical 
and Apocryphal as well known in his time.J 

From the authorities cited above, it will evidently 
appear, that at an early period the sacred Scriptures 
were carefully distinguished from all other writings, 
and formed a rule, which all Christians considered to 
be authoritative: and that this collection of sacred 
writings received the name of Canon. || 

The division of the sacred books which is most an- 
cient and universal, is, into the Old Testament, and 
the New Testament. The apostle Paul himself lays 

* Eus. Hist. Lib. VI. c. 25. f Haeres. 61. t De Haeresibus, 40. 

II It cannot be denied, however, that the word Canon is not 
always used by the Fathers in the same definite sense. Some- 
times, under this name, they include books not inspired, and this 
has given some plausibility to the Popish doctrine respecting the 
Apocrypha, 



20 EARLY USE OF THE WORD CANON. 

a foundation for this distinction; for, in his second 
epistle to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. iii. 14, he uses the 
phrases Old Testament and New Testament; and in 
one instance, designates the Scriptures of the Law, 
by the former title: "For until this day," says he, 
"remaineth the same veil untaken away in the reading 
of the Old Testament." 

It is our object, in this work, to inquire into the 
Canon, both of the Old and New Testament, and to 
discuss all the principal questions connected with this 
subject. 



OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 21 



SECTION II. 

CONSTITUTION OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY 
EZRA — THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AS IT NOW 

EXISTS, SANCTIONED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES 

CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS BY SOME OF THE EARLY FA- 
THERS — AGREEMENT OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ON THIS 
SUBJECT. 

The five books of Moses were, when finished, care- 
fully deposited by the side of the ark of the Covenant, 
Deut. xxxi. 24 — 26. "And it came to pass, when 
Moses had made an end of writing the words of this 
law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses 
commanded the Levites which bore the ark of the cove- 
nant of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, 
and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of 
the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness 
against thee." 

No doubt, copies of the sacred volume were made 
out, before it was deposited in the most holy place ; 
for as it was there inaccessible to any but the priests, 
the people generally must have remained ignorant, 
had there been no copies of the law. But we know 
that copies were written, for it was one of the laws 
respecting the duty of a king, when such an officer 
should be appointed, that he should write out a copy 
of the law with his own hand. Deut. xvii. 18 — 20, 
"And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of 



22 OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 

liis kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this 
law in a book, out of that which is before the priests, 
the Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall 
read therein, all the days of his life ; that he may 
learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words 
of this law and these statutes to do them ; that his 
heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he 
turn not aside from the commandment to the right 
hand or to the left : to the end that he may prolong 
his days in his kingdom, he and his children in the 
midst of Israel." It is related by Josephus, that by 
the direction of Moses, a copy of the law was prepared 
for each of the tribes of Israel. 

It seems that the book of Joshua was annexed to 
the volume of the Pentateuch ; for we read that 
" Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of 
God." See Josh i. 8 ; xxiv. 26. And the matters 
contained in this book were of public concern to 
the nation, as well as those recorded in the law. 
For, as in the latter were written statutes and or- 
dinances, to direct them in all matters sacred and 
civil; so in the former was recorded the division 
of the land among the tribes. The possession of 
each tribe was here accurately defined, so that this 
book served as a national deed of conveyance. When 
other books were added to the Canon, no doubt, the 
inspired men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to 
write them, would be careful to deposit copies in the 
sanctuary, and to have other copies put into circula- 
tion. But on this subject we have no precise informa- 
tion. We know not with what degree of care the sa- 
cred books were guarded, or to what extent copies 
were multiplied. 



OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 23 

A single fact shows that the sacred autograph of 
Moses had well nigh perished, in the idolatrous reigns 
of Manasseh and Amon, but was found, during the 
reign of the pious Josiah, among the rubbish of the 
temple. It cannot, however, be reasonably supposed, 
that there were no other copies of the law scattered 
through the nation. It does indeed seem that the 
young king had never seen the book, and was igno- 
rant of its contents, until it was now read to him ; but 
while the autograph of Moses had been misplaced, and 
buried among the ruins, many pious men might have 
possessed private copies. 

And although at the destruction of Jerusalem and 
of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, this precious vo- 
lume was, in all probability, destroyed with the ark 
and all the holy apparatus of the sanctuary ; yet we 
are not to credit the Jewish tradition, too readily re- 
ceived by the Christian Fathers, that, on this occa- 
sion, all the copies of the Scriptures were lost, and 
that Ezra restored the whole by a miracle. This is a 
mere Jewish fable, depending on no higher authority 
than a passage in the fourth book of Esdras, and is 
utterly inconsistent with facts recorded in the sacred 
volume. We know that Daniel had a copy of the 
Scriptures, for he quotes them, and makes express 
mention of the prophecies of Jeremiah. And Ezra 
is called " a ready scribe in the law ;" and it is said, 
in the sixth chapter of Ezra, that when the temple 
was finished, the functions of the priests and Levites 
were regulated, " as it is written in the book of Moses.'' 
And this was many years before Ezra came to Jeru- 
salem. And in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, it is 
said that Ezra, at the request of the people, " brought 



24 CANON BY EZRA. 

the law before the congregation, and he read therein 
from the morning until mid-day. And Ezra opened 
the book in the sight of all the people." It is evi- 
dent, therefore, that all the copies of the Scriptures 
were not lost during the captivity. This story, no 
doubt, originated from two facts : the first, that the 
autographs in the temple, had been destroyed with that 
sacred edifice ; and the second, that Ezra took great 
pains to have correct copies of the Scriptures prepared 
and circulated. 

It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of 
the present Canon of the Old Testament should be 
attributed to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the 
Jewish writers inform us, that there existed in his 
time a great synagogue, consisting of one hundred 
and twenty men, including Daniel and his three 
friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego ; the pro- 
phets Haggai and Zechariah; and also Simon the 
Just. But it is very absurd to suppose that all these 
lived at one time, and formed one synagogue, as they 
are pleased to represent it : for, from the time of 
Daniel to that of Simon the Just, no less than two 
hundred and fifty years intervened. 

It is, however, not improbable that Ezra was as- 
sisted in this great work, by many learned and pious 
men, who were cotemporary with him ; and as pro- 
phets had always been the superintendents, as well as 
writers of the sacred volume, it is likely that the in- 
spired men who lived at the same time as Ezra, would 
give attention to this work. But in regard to this 
great synagogue, the only thing probable is, that the 
men who are said to have belonged to it, did not live 
in one age, but successively, until the time of Simon 



CANON BY EZRA. 25 

the Just, who was made high priest about twenty-five 
years after the death of Alexander the Great. This 
opinion has its probability increased, by the considera- 
tion that the Canon of the Old Testament appears 
not to have been fully completed, until about the time 
of Simon the Just. Malachi seems to have lived after 
the time of Ezra, and therefore his prophecy could 
not have been added to the Canon by this eminent 
scribe ; unless we adopt the opinion of the Jews, who 
will have Malachi to be no other than Ezra himself; 
maintaining, that while Ezra was his proper name, he 
received that of Malachi, from the circumstance of 
his having been sent to superintend the religious con- 
cerns of the Jews ; for the import of that name is, a 
messenger^ or one sent. 

But this is not all — in the book of Nehemiah,* men- 
tion is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Darius 
Codomannus, king of Persia, both of whom lived at 
least a hundred years after the time of Ezra. In the 
third chapter of the first book of Chronicles, the gene- 
alogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down, at 
least to the time of Alexander the Great. This book, 
therefore, could not have been put into the Canon by 
Ezra ; nor much earlier than the time of Simon the 
Just. The book of Esther, also, was probably added 
during this interval. 

The probable conclusion, therefore, is that Ezra 
began this work, and collected and arranged all the 
sacred books which belonged to the Canon before his 
time, and that a succession of pious and learned men 
continued to pay attention to the Canon, until the 
whole was completed, about the time of Simon the 
* Nehemiah xii. 22. 

3 



26 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

Just. After which, nothing was added to the Canon 
of the Old Testament. 

Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was 
added after the book of Malachi was written, except 
a few names and notes ; and that all the books be- 
longing to the Canon of the Old Testament, were col- 
lected and inserted in the sacred volume by Ezra him- 
self. And this opinion seems to be the safest, and is 
not incredible in itself. It accords also with the uni- 
form tradition of the Jews, that Ezra completed the 
Canon of the Old Testament ; and that after Malachi 
there arose no prophet who added anything to the 
sacred volume.* 

Whether the books were now collected into a single 
volume, or were bound up in several codices, is a ques- 
tion of no importance. If we can ascertain what books 
were received as canonical, it matters not in what 
form they were preserved. It seems probable, how- 
ever, that the sacred books were at this time distri- 
buted into three volumes, the Law ; the Prophets, 
and the Hagiographa. This division, we know to be 
as ancient as the time of our Saviour, for he says, 
" These are the words which I spake unto you while I 
was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled 
which are written in the law, and in the prophets, 
and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke xxiv. 44. 
Josephus also makes mention of this division, and it is 

* The Jews are accustomed to call Malachi the " seal of the 
Prophets." Jerome says : " Post Haggaeum et Zachariam nul- 
los alios Prophetas usque ad Johannem Baptistam videram." That 
is, "After Ilaggai and Zacharias, even to the time of John the 
Baptist, I have found no other prophets." In Esaiam xlix. 2. 



SANCTIONED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. 27 

by the Jews, with one consent, referred to Ezra, as its 
author. 

In establishing the Canon of the Old Testament, 
we might labour under considerable uncertainty and 
embarrassment, in regard to several books were it not 
that the whole of what were called "the Scriptures," 
and which were included in the threefold division 
mentioned above, received the explicit sanction of our 
Lord. He was not backward to reprove the Jews for 
disobeying, misinterpreting, and adding their tradi- 
tions to the Scriptures, but he never drops a hint that 
they had been unfaithful or careless in the preserva- 
tion of the sacred books. This argument for the in- 
tegrity of the books of the Old Testament was used 
by Origen, as we are informed by Jerome, who says : 
" Si aliquis dixerit Hebrseos libros, a Judseis esse fal- 
satos, audiat Origenem : Quod nunquam Dominus 
et Apostoli, qui csetera crimina in Scribis, de hoc 
crimine quod est maximum^ reticuissent." In Esai. 
cvi, tom. iii. p. 63. So far from this, he refers to 
the Scriptures as an infallible rule, which " must 
be fulfilled," Mark xiv. 49, and "could not be bro- 
ken." John X. 35. " Search the Scriptures," John 
V. 39, said he, " for in them ye think ye have eter- 
nal life, and they are they which testify of me." The 
errors of the Sadducees are attributed to an igno- 
rance of the Scriptures : and they are never men- 
tioned but with the highest respect, and as the un- 
erring word of God. The apostle Paul, also, referring 
principally, if not wholly, to the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, says, "And that from a child thou hast 
known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make 
thee wise unto salvation. All Scripture is given by 



28 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 

inspiration of God." 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. They are also 
called by this apostle, "the oracles of God;" "the 
lively oracles," " the word of God ;" and when 
quotations are made from David, it is represented as 
"the Holy Ghost speaking by the mouth of David." 
Acts i. 16 ; iv. 25. The testimony of Peter is not 
less explicit, for he says, " The prophecy came not 
in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God 
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet. 
i. 21. And the apostle James speaks of the Scrip- 
tures with equal confidence and respect : " And re- 
ceive with meekness," says he, "the ingrafted word 
which is able to save your souls." James i. 21 — 23. 
" And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith," &c. 
" Do ye think that the Scripture saith in vain ?" James 
iv. 5, &c. 

We have, therefore, an important point established 
with the utmost certainty, that the volume of Scrip- 
ture which existed in the time of Christ and his apos- 
tles was uncorrupted, and was esteemed by them an 
infallible rule. Now, if we can ascertain what books 
were then included in the Sacred Volume, we shall 
be able to settle the Canon of the Old Testament 
without uncertainty. 

But here lies the difficulty. Neither Christ nor any 
of his apostles has given us a catalogue of the books 
which composed the Scriptures of the Old Testament. 
They have distinctly quoted a number of these books, 
and, so far, the evidence is complete. We know that 
the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms were 
included in their Canon. But this does not ascertain, 
particularly, whether the very same books which we 
now find in the Old Testament were then found in it 



SANCTIONED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. 29 

and no others. It is necessary then, to resort to other 
sources of information. And, happily, the Jewish 
historian Josephus furnishes us with the very informa- 
tion which we want ; not, indeed, as explicitly as we 
could wish, but sufficiently so to lead us to a very sa- 
tisfactory conclusion. He does not name the books 
of the Old Testament, but he numbers them, and so 
describes them that there is scarcely room for any 
mistake. The important passage to which we refer is 
in his first book against Apion, ^' We have," says he, 
" only two-and-twenty books, which are justly believed 
to be of divine authority — of which five are the books of 
Moses. Prom the death of Moses to the reign of 
Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, king of Persia, the 
Prophets, who were the successors of Moses, have 
written in thirteen books. The remaining four books 
contain hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation 
of human life." Now, the five books of Moses are uni- 
versally agreed to be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The thirteen books 
written by the prophets will include Joshua, Judges, 
with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with La- 
mentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Pro- 
phets, Job, Ezra, Esther, and Chronicles. The four 
remaining books will be. Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesias- 
tes, and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole 
number twenty-two. The Canon then existing is proved 
to be the same as that which we now possess. It 
would appear, indeed, that these books might more 
conveniently be reckoned twenty-four ; and this is the 
present method of numbering them by the modern 
Jews ; but formerly the number was regulated by that 
of the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty-two 

3=K 



30 TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS. 

letters : therefore they annexed the small book of Ruth 
to Judges ; and probably it is a continuation of this 
book by the same author. They added, also, the La- 
mentations of Jeremiah to his prophecy, and this was 
natural enough. As to the minor prophets, which 
form twelve separate books in our Bibles, they were, 
anciently, always reckoned one book, so they are con- 
sidered in every ancient catalogue, and in all quota- 
tions from them. Josephus adds, to what is cited 
above, the following ; "But as to the books which have 
been written since the time of Artaxerxes until our 
times, they are not considered worthy of the same 
credit as the former, because they do not contain ac- 
curate doctrine sanctioned by the prophets."* 

It will not be supposed that any change could have 
occurred in the Canon from the time of our Saviour 
and his apostles, to that in which Josephus wrote. 
Indeed, he may be considered the contemporary of the 
apostles, as he was born about the time of Paul's con- 
version to Christianity, and was therefore grown up 
to man's age long before the death of this apostle ; 
and the apostle John probably survived him. And it 
must be remembered that Josephus is here giving his 
testimony to a public fact : he is declaring what books 
were received as divine by his nation ; and he does it 
without hesitation or inconsistency. " We have," 
says he, " only twenty-two books which are justly be- 
lieved to be of divine authority." 

We are able also to adduce other testimony to prove 
the same thing. Some of the early Christian Fathers, 
who had been brought up in Paganism, when they em- 

* Contra Apionem ; Euseb. iii. 10. 



CATALOGUES BY THE EARLY FATHERS. 31 

braced Christianity, were curious in their inquiries 
into the Canon of the Old Testament ; and the result 
of the researches of some of them still remains. Me- 
LITO, bishop of Sardis, travelled into Judea, for the 
very purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And 
although his own writings are lost, Eusebius has pre- 
served his catalogue of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment ; from which it appears, that the very same books 
were, in his day, received into the Canon, as are now 
found in our Hebrew Bibles. In the catalogue of 
Melito, presented by Eusebius, after Proverbs^ the 
word Wisdom occurs, which nearly all commentators 
have been of opinion is only another name for the same 
book, and not the name of the book now called " The 
Wisdom of Solomon." There is, however, an omis- 
sion of Esther and Nehemiah. As to the latter, it 
creates no difficulty, for Ezra and Nehemiah are com- 
monly counted as one book ; and some learned men 
are of opinion that Ezra being the author of Esther, 
this book also is included under the name Usdras. 
The interval between Melito and Josephus is not 
a hundred years, so that no alteration in the Canon 
can be reasonably supposed to have taken place in this 
period. 

Very soon after Melito, Origen furnishes us with a 
catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which 
perfectly accords with our Canon, except that he omits 
the Minor Prophets ; which omission must have been 
a mere slip of the pen, in him or his copyist, as it is 
certain that he received this as a book of Holy Scrip- 
ture : and the number of the books of the Old Testa- 
tament, given by him in this very place, cannot be 



32 CATALOaUES BY THE EARLY FATHERS. 

completed without reckoning the twelve Minor Pro- 
phets as one. 

After Origen, we have catalogues in succession, not 
onlj by men of the first authority in the church, but 
by councils, consisting of numerous bishops, all which 
are perfectly the same as our own. It will be sufficient 
merely to refer to these sources of information. Cata- 
logues of the books of the Old Testament have been 
given by Athanasius ; by Cyril ; by Augustine ; 
by Jerome ; by Rufin ; by the council of Laodi- 
CEA, in their LX. Canon ; and by the the council op 
Carthage. And when it is considered, that all these 
catalogues exactly correspond with our present Canon 
of the Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I think, must ap- 
pear complete to every impartial mind, that the Canon 
of the Old Testament is settled upon the clearest his- 
torical grounds. There seems to be nothing to be 
wished for further in the confirmation of this point. 

But if all this testimony had been wanting, there is 
still a source of evidence to which we might refer with 
the utmost confidence, as perfectly conclusive on this 
point ; I mean the fact that these books have been 
ever since the time of Christ and his apostles in the 
keeping of both Jews and Christians, who have been 
constantly arrayed in opposition to each other ; so that 
it was impossible that any change should have been 
made in the Canon, by either party, without being 
immediately detected by the other. And the conclu- 
sive evidence that no alteration in the Canon has oc- 
curred is the perfect agreement of these hostile parties 
in regard to the books of the Old Testament at this 
time. On this point, the Jew and Christian are har- 
monious. There is no complaint of addition to, or 



AaREEMENT OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS. 33 

diminution of, the sacred books on either side. The 
Hebrew Bible of the Jew is the Bible of the Christian. 
There is here no difference. A learned Jew and a 
Christian have even been united in publishing an excel- 
lent edition of the Hebrew Bible.* Now, if any alter- 
ation in the Canon has occurred, it must have been by 
the concert or collusion of both parties; but how 
absurd this idea is must be manifest to all. 

I acknowledge what is here said of the agreement 
of Christians and Jews can only be said in relation to 
Protestant Christians. For as to those of the Romish 
and Grreek communions they have admitted other books 
into the Canon, which Jews and Protestants hold to 
be apocryphal; but these books will form the subject 
of a particular discussion, in the sequel of this work. 
The fact is important, that a short time after the 
Canon of the Old Testament was closed, a translation 
was made of the whole of the books into the Greek 
language. This translation was made at Alexandria, 
in Egypt, at the request, it is said, of Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus, king of Egypt, that he might have a copy of 
these sacred books in the famous library which he was 
engaged in collecting. It is called the Septuagint, 
from its being made, according to the accounts which 
have been handed down, by seventy, or rather seventy- 
two men ; six from each of the tribes of Israel. So 
many fabulous things have been reported concerning 
this version, that it is very difficult to ascertain the pre- 
cise truth. But it is manifest from internal evidence, 
that it was not the work of one hand, nor probably of 
one set of translators : for, while some books are ren- 
dered with great accuracy, and in a very literal manner, 
* See the Biblia Hebraica, edited by Leusden and Athias. 



34 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 

others are translated with little care, and the meaning 
of the original is very imperfectly given. The proba- 
bility is that the Pentateuch was first translated, and 
the other books were added from time to time by 
different hands ; but when the work was once begun, 
it is not likely that it w^ould be long before the whole 
was completed. Now this Greek version contains all 
the books which are found in our common Hebrew 
Bibles. It is a good witness therefore to prove that 
all these books were in the Canon when this version 
was made. The apocryphal books, which have long 
been connected with this version, will furnish a subject 
for consideration hereafter. 

There is, moreover, a distinct and remarkable testi- 
mony to the antiquity of the five books of Moses in 
the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has existed in a form 
entirely separate from the Jewish copies, and in a 
character totally different from that in which the 
Hebrew Bible has been for many ages written. It has 
also been preserved and handed down to us by a people 
who have ever been hostile to the Jews. This Penta- 
teuch has, without doubt, been transmitted through a 
separate channel ever since the ten tribes of Israel 
were carried captive. It furnishes authentic testimony 
to the great antiquity of the books of Moses, and 
shows how little they have been corrupted during the 
lapse of nearly three thousand years. The Samaritans 
were the people transplanted from other countries into 
the places vacated by the captivity of the ten tribes of 
Israel. At first, they were all idolaters ; but being 
annoyed by wild beasts, they supposed it was because 
they knew not how to worship the God of the country. 
They, therefore, requested that a priest should be sent 



THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 35 

to them of the Israelitish nation to instruct them. 
Their request was granted ; and this priest, no doubt, 
brought with him a copy of the law. At one time it 
was doubted whether a Samaritan Pentateuch was in 
existence, but a learned man going into Palestine, 
obtained several copies. And they have also a trans- 
lation of the whole into the Samaritan language. 
The Pentateuch, though Hebrew, is written in Sama- 
ritan characters, which many learned men think was 
the original Hebrew character. 



36 THE APOCRYPHA. 



SECTION HI. 



APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, THEIR ORIGIN — ^IMPORTANCE OP DIS- 
TINGUISHING BETWEEN CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL 
BOOKS — SIX BOOKS OP THIS CLASS PRONOUNCED CA- 
NONICAL BY THE COUNCIL OP TRENT NOT IN THE 

HEBREW, NOR RECEIVED BY THE JEWS, ANCIENT OR 
MODERN. 



The word Apocrypha signifies concealed^ obscure, 
witliout authority. In reference to the Bible, it is 
employed to designate such books as claim a place in 
the sacred volume, but which are not canonical. It 
is said to have been first used by Melito, bishop of 
Sardis. 

An inquiry into this subject cannot be uninteresting 
to the friends of the Bible; for it behoves them to 
ascertain, on the best evidence, what books belong to 
the sacred volume, and also, on what grounds other 
books are rejected from the Canon. This subject as- 
sumes a higher importance from the fact, that Chris- 
tians are much divided on this point ; for, some re- 
ceive as of canonical authority, books which others 
reject as spurious, or consider merely as human com- 
positions. On such a point every Chi'istian should 



THE APOCRYPHAL CONTROVERSY. 87 

form his opinion upon tlie best information which he 
can obtain. 

In controversy with the Romanists this subject 
meets us at the very threshold. It is vain to dispute 
about particular doctrines of Scripture until it is de- 
termined what books are to be received as Scripture. 

This subject gave rise to a very unpleasant contro- 
versy between the British and Foreign Bible Society 
and some of the leading ministers of Scotland. The 
principle adopted at the beginning by the Bible So- 
ciety was, to circulate nothing but the text of the 
Holy Scriptures, without note or comment. But 
in order to get the Scriptures into the hands of the 
Romanists, Bibles containing the Apocrypha were 
circulated, which proceeding gave just offence to the 
ministers of the Church of Scotland, and to the effi- 
cient auxiliaries of that country. 

A strong remonstrance was therefore made to the 
Managers of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 
and their answer not being entirely satisfactory, the 
Scotch ministers withdrew from the Society in Lon- 
don, and established one independent of the mother 
Society ; and this breach has never been healed. But 
it is due to the British and Foreign Bible Society to 
state, that in consequence of the discussion, they 
adopted a correct principle for their future proceedings. 

The whole subject was referred to a select and 
learned sub-committee ; who, after mature delibera- 
tion, brought in a report which was adopted, and led 
to the following wise resolution in the General Com- 
mittee, viz. " That the funds of the Society be ap- 
plied to the printing and circulation of the canonical 
books of Scripture to the exclusion of those books 
4 



38 APOCRYPHAL CONTROVERSY. 

which are termed apocryphal ; and that all copies 
printed, either entirely or in part, at the expense of 
the Society, and whether such copies consist of the 
whole or of any part of such books, be invariably is- 
sued bound, no other book whatever being bound with 
them ; and further, that all money grants to societies 
or individuals be made only in conformity with the 
principle of this regulation." 

" In the sacred volume, as it is to be hereafter 
distributed by the Society, there is to be nothing but 
divine truth, nothing but what is acknowledged by all 
Christians to be such. Of course all may unite in the 
work of distribution, even should they regard the vo- 
lume as containing but part of the inspired writings ; 
just as they might in the circulation of the Pentateuch 
or the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New 
Testament. Such harmonious operation would not, 
however, be possible, if the books of the apocrypha 
were mingled or joined with the rest ; anfl besides, 
those who have the strongest objection to the apocry- 
pha, are, ordinarily, those who are most forward in 
active and liberal efforts to send the word of God to 
all people." 

This judicious decision of the Committee of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society depends for its cor- 
rectness on the supposition that the books of the apo- 
crypha are not canonical ; for, whatever may be said 
about circulating a part of the Bible, it was undoubt- 
edly the original object of this Society to print and 
circulate the whole of the sacred volume. Hence 
appears the practical importance of the inquiry which 
we have here instituted, to ascertain whether these 



THE APOCEYPHA CANONIZED BY TRENT. 39 

books have any claim whatever to a place in the sa- 
cred Canon. 

At a very early period of the Christian church, 
great pains were taken to distinguish between such 
books as were inspired and canonical, and such as 
were written by uninspired men. It has never been 
doubted among Christians, that the canonical books 
only were of divine authority, and furnished an infal- 
lible rule of faith and practice ; but it has not been 
agreed what books ought to be considered canonical 
and what apocryphal. In regard to those which have 
already been enumerated, as belonging to the Old 
Testament, there is a pretty general consent of Jews 
and Christians, of Romanists and Protestants ; but in 
regard to some other books there is a wide difference 
of opinion. 

The council of Trent, in their fourth session, gave 
a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among 
which are included Tohit^ Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesi- 
asticits, Baruch, and two books of the Maccabees."^ 
Besides, they include under the name Esther and 
Daniel, certain additional chapters, which are not 
found in the Hebrew copies. The book of Esther is 
made to consist of sixteen chapters ; and prefixed to 
the book of Daniel, is the History of Susannah ; the 
Song of the Three Children is inserted in the third 
chapter ; and the History of Bel and the Dragon is 
added at the end of this book. Other books which 
are found in the Greek or Latin Bibles, they rejected 
as apocryphal; as the third and fourth books of 

* See Note A. 



40 THE APOCRYPHA IN ENGLISH BIBLES 

Esdras ;* the third book of Maccabees ; the cli. Psalm ; 
the Appendix to Job ; and the Preface to Lamenta- 
tions. 

Both these classes of books, all denominations of 
Protestants consider apocryphal ; but as the English 
church, in her Liturgy, directs that certain lessons 
shall be read from the former, for the instruction of 
the people, but not for confirmation of doctrine, they 
are retained in the larger copies of the English Bible, 
but are not mingled with the canonical books, as in 
the Vulgate, but placed at the end of the Old Testa- 
ment, under the title of ApocrypJia. It is certainly to 
be regretted that these books are permitted to be in- 
cluded in the same volume which contains the lively 
oracles, — the word of G-od, — the Holy Scriptures; all 
of which were given by inspiration ; and more to be 
regretted still, that they should be read in the church 
promiscuously with the lessons taken from the cano- 
nical books ; especially as no notice is given to the 
people, that what is read from these books is apocry- 
phal; and as in the Prayer Book of the Episcopal 
church the tables which refer to the lessons to be read, 

* The first and second books of Esdras are very frequently 
called the third and fourth ; in which case the two canonical 
books, Ezra and Nehemiah, are reckoned the first and second : 
for both these books have been ascribed to Ezra as their author ; 
but these are not included in the list of canonical books sanc- 
tioned by the Council of Trent, and therefore they do not come 
into controversy. Indeed, the second of these books is not found 
even in the Greek, but only in the Latin Vulgate, and is so 
replete with fables and false statements that it has never been 
esteemed of any value. They are both, however, retained in 
our larger English Bibles, and are honoured with the foremost 
place in the order of the apocryphal books. 



NOT IN THE HEBEEW. 41 

have this title prefixed — "Tables of lessons of Holy- 
Scripture to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer, 
throughout the year." The Rev. Doctor Wordsworth, 
in his work on the Canon, defends the practice of re- 
taining in the Bible, and publicly reading in the church, 
certain lessons from the apocryphal books, principally 
because this was done by the ancient church ; and he 
apologizes for the practice by saying, that these les- 
sons are never read on the Lord's day. But as he 
acknowledges that they are not inspired, and are not 
canonical, the inference is plain, that they ought not 
to be included in the same volume with canonical 
books, and ought not to he read as Scripture in the 
churches. Now, however good and instructive these 
apocryphal lessons may be, it never can be justified, 
that they should thus be put on a level with the word 
of God.* 

But it is our object at present to show, that none of 
these books, canonized by the Council of Trent, and 
inserted in our larger English Bibles, are canonical. 

1. The first argument by which it may be proved 
that these books do not belong to the Canon of the 
Old Testament, is, that they are not found in the 
Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew 
language, but in the Greek, which was not known to 
the Jews, until long after inspiration had ceased, and 
the Canon of the Old Testament was closed. It is ren- 
dered probable, indeed, that some of them were written 
originally in the Chaldaic. Jerome testifies this to be 
the fact, in regard to 1 Maccabees and JEcclesiasticus ; 

* See Tables prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer; also, 
the^ixth Article of Religion of the Episcopal Church. 

4* 



42 REJECTED BY THE JEWS. 

and he says, that he translated the book of Tohit out 
of Chaldee into Latin ; but this book is now found in 
the Greek, and there is good reason for believing that 
it was written originally in this language. It is cer- 
tain, however, that none of these books were composed 
in the pure Hebrew of the Old Testament. 

Hettinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen the 
whole of the apocrypha in pure Hebrew, among the 
Jews ; but he entertains no doubt that it was translated 
into that language, in modern times : just as the whole 
New Testament has recently been translated into pure 
Hebrew. 

It is the common opinion of the Jews, and of the 
Christian Fathers, that 3Ialac'hi was the last of the 
Old Testament prophets. Books written by uncertain 
authors afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned ca- 
nonical, and there is good reason for believing that 
those books were written long after the time of Ezra 
and Malachi, and some of them perhaps later than the 
commencement of the Christian era. 

2. These books, though probably written by Jews, 
have never been received into the Canon by that peo- 
ple. In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of the 
same mind. Josephus declares, "That no more than 
twenty-two books were received as inspired by his 
nation." Philo, who refers often to the Old Testa- 
ment in his writings, never makes the least mention of 
them ; nor are they recognized in the Talmud as ca- 
nonical. Not only so, but the Jewish Rabbles expressly 
reject them. 

Rabbi Azariah, speaking of these books, says, 
"They are received by Christians, not by us." 

R. Gedaliah, after giving a catalogue of the books 



KEJECTED BY THE JEWS. 43 

of the Old Testament, with some account of their 
authors, adds these words, "It is worthwhile to know, 
that the nations of the world wrote many other books, 
which are included in their systems of sacred books, 
but not in our hands." To which he adds, "They say 
that some of these are found in the Chxildee, some in 
the Arabic, and some in the Greek language." 

R. AzAKiAH ascribed the book called the Wisdom 
of Solomon to Philo; and R. Gedaliah, in speaking 
of the same book, says, " That if Solomon ever wrote 
it, it must have been in the Syriac language, to send 
it to some of the kings in the remotest parts of the 
East. "But," says he, "Ezra put his hand only to 
those books which were published by the prophets, 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in 
the sacred language ; and our wise men prudently and 
deliberately resolved to sanction none, but such as were 
established and confirmed by him." 

"This book," says he, "the Gentiles (i. e. Chris- 
tians) have added to their Bible." " Their wise men," 
says Buxtorf, "pronounced this book to be apocry- 
phal." 

The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be written 
by the son of Sirach, is expressly numbered among 
apocryphal books in the Talmud. " In the book of 
the Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to be read." 

Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation, " Those 
things which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus 
are nothing to the purpose, because that is an apocry- 
phal book." Another of their writers says, " Tlie 
book of the son of Sirach is added to our twenty-four 
sacred books by the Romans." This book also they 
call extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit to be 



44 REJECTED BY THE JEWS. 

read. With what face then can the Romanists pre- 
tend that this book was added to the Canon not long 
before the time of Josephus ? 

"Baeuch," says one of their learned men, "is re- 
ceived by Christians," (i. e. Romanists,) "but not by us." 

Of ToBiT, it is said in Zemach David, " Know, then, 
that this book of Tobias is one of those which Chris- 
tians j oin with the Hagiographa. ' ' A little afterwards, 
it is said, " Know then, that Tobit, which is among us 
in the Hebrew tongue, was translated from Latin into 
Hebrew by Sebastian Munster." The same writer 
affirms of the history of Susannah, " That it is received 
by Christians but not by us." 

The Jews, in the time of Jerome, entertained no 
other opinion of these books than those who came after 
them ; for, in his preface to Daniel, he informs us, 
" That he had heard one of the Jewish doctors deriding 
the history of Susannah, saying, ' It was invented 
by some Greek, he knew not whom.' "* 

The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting the 
other books, which we call apocryphal, as is manifest 
from all the copies of the Hebrew Bible extant ; for, 
undoubtedly if they believed that any of these books 
were canonical, they would give them a place in their 
sacred volume. But will any ask, what is the opinion 
of the Jews to us ? I answer, much on this point. 
The oracles of God were committed to them ; and they 
preserved them with a religious care until the advent 
of Messiah. Christ never censures them for adding 
to the sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them. 
Since their nation has been in dispersion, copies of the 
Old Testament in Hebrew have been scattered all over 
* See the Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger. 



NEVER QUOTED BY CHRIST. 45 

the world, so that it was impossible to produce a uni- 
versal alteration in the Canon. But it is needless to 
argue this point, for it is agreed by all that these books 
never were received by the Jewish nation. 

3. The third argument against the canonical autho- 
rity of these books is derived from the total silence 
respecting them in the New Testament. They are 
never quoted by Christ and his apostles. This fact, 
however, is disputed by the Romanists, and they even 
attempt to establish their right to a place in the Canon 
from the citations which they pretend have been made 
from these books by the apostles. They refer to Rom. 
xi. and Heb. xi., where they allege that Paul has cited 
passages from the Book of Wisdom. " For who hath 
known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his 
counsellor?" " For before his translation he had this 
testimony that he pleased God." But both these pas- 
sages are taken directly from the canonical books of 
the Old Testament. The first is nearly in the words 
of Isaiah ; and the last from the book of Genesis ; 
their other examples are as wide of the mark as these, 
and need not be set down. 

It has already been shown that these books were not 
included in the volume quoted and referred to by Christ 
and his apostles, under the title of the Scriptures, and 
and are entirely omitted by Josephus in his account of 
the sacred books. It would seem, therefore, that in 
the time of Christ, and for some time afterwards, they 
were utterly unknown or wholly disregarded. 



46 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED. 



SECTION IV. 

TESTIMONIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, AND OF OTHER 
LEARNED MEN DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL OP 
TRENT, RESPECTING THE APOCRYPHA. 

The fourtli argument is, that these books were not 
received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but 
were expressly declared to be apocryphal. 

Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in 
all his writings, from any apocryphal book. 

The first catalogue of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment which we have, after the times of the apostles, 
from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop 
of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which 
is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows : 
^' Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since 
you have often earnestly requested of me, in conse- 
quence of your love of learning, a collection of the 
Sacred Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and 
what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our whole 
faith ; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accu- 
rate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects 
their number and order, I have used diligence to ac- 
complish this, knowing your sincere affection towards 
the faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted 
with the word ; and that striving after eternal life, 
your love to God induces you to prefer these to all 
other things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to 



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 4T 

the very place wliere these things were published and 
transacted, and having made diligent search after the 
books of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send 
you the following catalogue : — " Five books of Moses, 
viz., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuter- 
onomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 
two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Pro- 
verbs of Solomon, or Wisdom,* Ecclesiastes, the Song 
of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in 
one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."f 

Origen also says, " We should not be ignorant, that 
the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews 
delivered unto us, and are twenty-two in numbei', 
according to the number of letters of the Hebrew 
alphabet." Then he sets down, in order, the names 
of the books, in Greek and Hebrew. J 

Athanasius, in his Synopsis, says, "All the 
Scriptui^es of us Christians are divinely inspired ; 
neither are they indefinite in their number, but deter- 
mined, and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old 
Testament are. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, 

* Whether Melito, in his catalogue, by the word Wisdom, 
meant to designate a distinct book ; or whether it was used as 
another name for Proverbs, seems doubtful. The latter has gene- 
rally been understood to be the sense ; and this accords with the 
understanding of the ancients ; for Rufin, in his translation of 
this passage of Eusebius renders napoifxiai q aocpia Salomonis Pro- 
verbia, quae est sapientia ; that is. The Proverbs of Solomon^ which 
is Wisdom. Pineda, a learned Romanist, says, " The word 
Wisdom should here be taken as explicative of the former, and 
should br understood to mean, The Proverbs." 

t Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c. 24. 

X Origen's catalogue of the books of the Old Testament is 
presented by Eusebius, in his Ecc. Hist. Lib. vi. c. 25. 



48 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED 

Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chroni- 
cles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, 
Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
Daniel."* 

Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, 
and resided in France, has numbered the canonical 
books of the Old Testament, in the following manner : 
" The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the 
seventh of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first 
and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth 
Kings ; the tenth of the Chronicles, two books ; the 
eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah ;) the 
twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the 
Song of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth ; 
the twelve Prophets the sixteenth ; then Isaiah and 
Jeremiah, including Lamentations and his Epistle, 
Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full 
number of twenty-two." And in his preface he adds, 
that " these books were thus numbered by our ances- 
tors, and handed down by tradition from them."t 

Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study 
the sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as 
were apocryphal ; and then gives a list of the books 
of the Old Testament, and according to the Jew- 
ish method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He 
complains of some that mingled the apocryphal 
books with those that were inspired, " of the truth of 
which last," says he, "we have the most perfect per- 

* It is a matter not agreed among the learned whether the 
" Synopsis" which has been ascribed to Athanasius was written 
by him. It is, however, an ancient work, and belongs to that 
age. 

f Proleg in Psalmos. 



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 49 

suasion ; therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate 
the canonical books from the beginning ; and those 
which belong to the Old Testament are two-and- 
twenty, according to the number of the Hebrew al- 
phabet, as I have understood." Then he proceeds to 
say, " Let no one add to these divine books, nor take 
any thing away from them, I think it necessary to 
add this, that there are other books besides those 
which I have enumerated as constituting the Canon, 
which, however, do not appertain to it ; but were pro- 
posed by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake 
of the instruction which they contain." Then, he 
expressly names as belonging to this class, the Wisdom 
of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, 
and Tobit.* 

Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a cata- 
logue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly cor- 
responding with that which Protestants receive : 
"Which," says he, "we believe agreeably to the tra- 
dition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the 
Holy Spirit." 

Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and 
Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament 
into four divisions of five each. " The first of which 
contains the law, next five poetical books. Job, Psalms, 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs ; in the third 
division he places Joshua, Judges, including Ruth, 
first and second Chronicles, four books of Kings. 
The last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and 
Esther." Thus he makes up the number twenty- two. 

Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism, exhorts his 

* Epist. ad Theod. et Lib. Carm. 
5 



50 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED 

catechumen diligently to learn from the church, what 
books appertain to the Old and New Testaments, and 
he says, '' Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read 
the Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the 
Old Testament, which were translated by the seventy- 
two interpreters." And in another place, " Meditate, 
as was said, in the twenty-tvro books of the Old Tes- 
tament, and if you wish it, I will give you their 
names." Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with 
those already given, except that he adds Baruch to 
the list. When Baruch is mentioned as making 
one book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the 
Fathers, it is most reasonable to understand those 
parts of Jeremiah, in the writing of which Baruch 
was concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter ; for, if 
we understand them as referring to the separate book 
now called Baruch, the number which they are so 
careful to preserve will be exceeded. This apocry- 
phal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never 
mentioned separately by any ancient author, as Bel- 
larmine confesses. This book was originally written 
in Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly 
from the old Latin translation. 

The Council of Laodicea forbade the reading of any 
books in the churches but such as were canonical ; and 
that the people might know what these were, a cata- 
logue was given, answering to the Canon which we 
now receive. 

Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Atha- 
NASius takes no notice of these books. Eusebius, in 
his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Macca- 
bees, and adds, " These books are not received as di- 
vine Scriptures." 



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 51 

PhilastriuSj an Italian bishop, who lived in the 
latter part of the fourth century, in a work on Heresy 
says, " It was determined by the apostles and their 
successors, that nothing should be read in the Catho- 
lic church but the law, prophets, evangelists," &c. — 
And he complains of certain Heretics, " That they 
used the book of Wisdom, by the son of Sirach, who 
lived long after Solomon." 

Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge 
of the Scriptures, declares, " That all the divine books 
of the Old Testament were originally written in the 
Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were re- 
ceived." Hom. 4. in Gen. 

But Jerome, already mentioned, who had diligently 
studied the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the best 
Jewish teachers, enters into this subject more fully 
and accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers. 
In his general Preface to his version of the Scrip- 
tures, he mentions the books which he had translated 
out of Hebrew into Latin ; "All besides them," says 
he, "must be placed among the apocryphal. There- 
fore, Wisdom, which is ascribed to Solomon, the book 
of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor, 
are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of 
Maccabees in Hebrew, (Chaldee ;) the second in Greek, 
and, as the style shows, it must have been com- 
posed in that language." And in his Preface to Ezra 
and Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by the 
Jews,) he says, " Let no one be disturbed that I have 
edited but one book under this name ; nor let any one 
please himself with the dreams contained in the third 
and fourth apocryphal books ascribed to this author ; 



52 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED 

for, with the Hebrews, Ezra and Nehemiah make but 
one book ; and those things not contained in this are 
to be rejected, as not belonging to the Canon." And 
in his preface to the books of Solomon, he speaks of 
"Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus ; the former of which," 
he says, " he found in Hebrew, (Chaldee,) but not the 
latter, which is never found among the Hebrews, but 
the style strongly savours of the Grecian eloquence." 
He then adds, "As the church reads the books of Ju- 
dith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, but does not receive 
them among the canonical Scriptures, so, also, she 
may read these two books for the edification of the 
common people, but not as authority to confirm any 
of the doctrines of the church." 

Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he says, " The 
book of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in 
Hebrew, nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I have 
passed it over." And in his preface to Daniel, "This 
book among the Hebrews has neither the history of 
Susanna, nor the Song of the three Children, nor the 
fables of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained 
lest we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed 
a large part of the Sacred Volume." 

In the preface to Tobit, he says, " The Hebrews 
cut off the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Di- 
vine Scriptures." And in his preface to Judith, 
he says, " Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among 
the Hagiographa, which are not of authority to deter- 
mine controversies." 

BuFiN, in his Exposition of the Creed, observes, 
"That there were some books which were not called 
canonical, but received by our ancestors, as the Wis- 



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 53 

dom of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of 
Sirach ; of the same order are the books of Tobit, 
Judith, and the Maccabees." 

Gregory the First, speaking of the testimony in 
the Maccabees, respecting the death of Eleazer, says, 
" Concerning which thing we do not act inordinately, 
although we bring our testimony from a book which is 
not canonical." 

Augustine is the only one among the Fathers who 
lived within four hundred years after the apostles, who 
seems to favour the introduction of these six disputed 
books into the Canon. In his work On Christian Doc- 
trine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testa- 
ment, among which he inserts Tobit, Judith, the two 
books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and 
Ecclesiasticus. These two last mentioned, he says, 
" are called Solomon's, on account of their resem- 
blance to his writings ; although it is known that one 
of them was composed by the son of Sirach : which 
deserves to be received among the prophetical books." 
But this opinion he retracted afterwards.* 

Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and La- 
tin Bibles, in which those books had been introduced, 
and we must suppose, unless we would make him 
contradict himself, that he meant in this place merely 
to enumerate the books then contained in the sacred 
volume ; for in many other places he clearly shows 
that he entertained the same opinion of the books of 
the Old Testament as the other Fathers. 

In his celebrated work of " The City of God," he ex- 
presses this opinion most explicitly — '' In that whole 
* See Note B. 

5* 



54 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED 

period, after the return from the Babylonish captivity, 
after Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, they had 
no prophets, even until the time of the advent of our 
Saviour. As our Lord says, the law and the pro- 
phets were until John. And even the reprobate Jews 
hold that Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, were 
the last books received into canonical authority." 

In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, "If 
any adversary should say you have forged these pro- 
phecies, let the Jewish books be produced — The Jews 
are our librarians." And on the Ivi. Psalm, "When 
we wish to prove to the Pagans that Christ was pre- 
dicted, we appeal to the writings in possession of the 
Jews ; they have all these Scriptures." 

And again, in the work first cited, " The Israelitish 
nation, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, 
never confounded false prophecies with the true, but 
all these writings are harmonious." Then in another 
work, in speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he 
says, " This writing the Jews never received in the 
same manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, 
to which the Lord gave testimony as by his own wit- 
nesses." And frequently in his works, he confines the 
canonical hooks to those properly included in this three- 
fold division. He also repeatedly declares that the 
canonical Scriptures, which are of most eminent autho- 
rity, are the books committed to the Jews. But in the 
eighteenth book of the City of God, speaking of 
Judith, he says, "Those things which are written in 
this book, it is said, the Jews have never received into 
the Canon of Scripture." And in the seventeenth 
book of the same work, "There are three books of 
Solomon, which have been received into canonical 



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 55 

authority, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles ; the 
other two. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, have been called 
by his name, through a custom which prevailed on 
account of their similarity to his writings; but the 
more learned are certain that they are not his ; and 
they cannot be brought forward with much confidence 
for the conviction of gainsay ers." 

He allows that the Book of Wisdom may be read 
to the people, and ought to be preferred to all other 
tracts; but he does not insist that the testimonies 
taken from it are decisive. And respecting Ecclesias- 
ticus, he says when speaking of Samuel's prophesying 
after his death, " But if this book is objected to be- 
cause it is not found in the Canon of the Jews," &c. 
His rejection of the books of Maccabees from the 
Canon is repeated and explicit. " The calculation of 
the times after the restoring of the temple is not found 
in the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but 
in certain other books, among which are the two books 
of Maccabees. The Jews do not receive the Macca- 
bees as the Law and the Prophets." 

It may be admitted, however, that Augustine 
entertained too high an opinion of these apocryphal 
books, but it is certain that he did not put them on a 
level with the genuine canonical books. He mentions 
a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it 
appears that although the apocryphal books were read 
in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy 
Scripture, nor put on a level with the canonical books ; 
for he informs us that they were not permitted to be 
read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, 
but from a lower place in the church. 

Innocent the first, who lived about the same 



66 TH±; APOCRYPHA DISOWNED 

time, is also alluded to as a witness to prove that these 
disputed books were then received into the Canon. 
But the epistle which contains his catalogue is ex- 
tremely suspicious. No mention is made of this epistle 
by any writer for three hundred years after the death 
of Innocent. But it is noways necessary to our 
argument to deny that in the end of the fourth and 
beginning of the fifth century, some individuals, and 
perhaps some councils, received these books as canon- 
ical, yet there is strong evidence that this was not the 
opinion of the universal church ; for in the council 
of Chalcedon, which is reckoned to be oecumenical, the 
Canons of the council of Laodicea which contain a 
catalogue of the genuine books of the Old Testament, 
are adopted. And it has been shown already that these 
apocryphal books were excluded from that catalogue. 

But it can be proved that even until the time of the 
meeting of the Council of Trent, by which these books 
were solemnly canonized, the most learned and judi- 
cious of the Popish writers adhere to the opinions of 
Jerome and the ancients ; or at least make a marked 
distinction between these disputed books and those 
which are acknowledged to be canonical by all. A 
few testimonies from distinguished writers, from the 
commencement of the sixth century down to the era 
of the Reformation, shall now be given. 

It deserves to be particularly observed here that in 
one of the laws of the Emperor Justinian, concerning 
ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, '' That the Canons 
of the first four general councils should be received 
and have the force of laws." 

Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in a work on the 
Creation, makes " the number of books which God 



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 57 

hath appointed for his Old Testament" to be no more 
than twenty-two ; although he speaks in very high 
terms of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus. 

Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his 
book against the Sects, acknowledges no other canoni- 
cal books of the Old Testament, but those which the 
Hebrews received; namely, twelve historical books, 
five prophetical, four of Doctrine and Instruction, and 
one of Psalms ; making the number twenty-two as 
usual ; and he makes not the least mention of any 
others. 

Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the seventh 
century, in his book of Morals, makes an apology for 
alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and says, 
" Though it be not taken from the canonical Scripture, 
yet it is cited from a book which was published for the 
edification of the church." 

Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the canonical 
books of the Old Testament into three orders, the 
Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa ; and after- 
wards adds — "There is a fourth order of books which 
are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament." 
Here he names these books, and says, " Though the 
Jews rejected them as apocryphal, the church has re- 
ceived them among the canonical Scriptures." 

John Damascene, a Syrian Presbyter, who lived 
early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew 
Canon of the Old Testament, numbering only two-and- 
twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith and Tobit, he 
says not one word; but he speaks of Wisdom and 
Ecclesiasticus, as "elegant and virtuous writings, yet 
not to be numbered among the canonical books of 



58 TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 

Scripture, never having been laid up in the ark of the 
Covenant." 

Venerable Bede follows the ancient method of 
dividing the books of the Old Testament into three 
classes ; but he remarkably distinguishes the Macca- 
bees from the canonical books by classing them with 
the writings of Josephus and Julius the African. 

Alcuin, the disciple of Bede, says, "The book of 
the son of Sirach was reputed an apocryphal and 
dubious Scripture." 

BuPERT, a learned man of the twelfth century, ex- 
pressly rejects the book of Wisdom from the Canon. 

Peter Mauritius, after giving a catalogue of the 
authentic Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the 
six disputed books, and says, " They are useful and 
commendable in the church, but are not to be placed 
in the same dignity with the rest." 

Hugo db S. Victore, a Saxon by birth, but who 
resided at Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the 
Old Testament, which includes no others but the two- 
and-twenty received from the Jews. Of Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit and Judith, he says, " They are 
used in the church but not written in the Canon." 

Richard de S. Victore, also of the twelfth cen- 
tury, in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares, 
" That there are but twenty-two books in the Canon ; 
and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 
the Maccabees, are not esteemed canonical although 
they are read in the churches." 

Peter Lombard, in his Scholastic History, enume- 
rates the books of the Old Testament, thus — Five books 
of Moses, eight of l^e prophets, and nine of the Ha- 
giographa, which leaves no room for these six disputed 



TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 59 

books ; but in his preface to Tobit he says expressly, 
that it is "in no order of the Canon ;" and of Judith, 
that "Jerome and the Hebrews place it in the apocry- 
pha." Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the 
Dragon a fable, and says that the history of Susannah 
is not as true as it should be. 

In this century also lived John of Salisbury, an 
Englishman, a man highly respected in his time. In 
one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and 
professes to follow Jerome and undoubtedly to believe 
that there are but twenty-two books in the Canon of 
the Old Testament, all which he names in order, and 
adds, " That neither the book of Wisdom, nor Eccle- 
siasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor 
the Maccabees, are esteemed canonical." 

In the thirteenth century, the opinion of the learned 
was the same, as we may see by the Ordinary Grloss on 
the Bible, in the composition of which many persons 
were concerned, and which was high approved by all the 
doctors and pastors in the western churches. In the 
preface to this gloss, they are reproached with igno- 
rance who hold all the books, put into the one volume 
of Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference be- 
tween these books is asserted to be as great as between 
certain and doubtful works. The canonical books are 
declared, " To have been written by the inspiration of 
the Holy Ghost; but who were the authors of the 
others is unknown." Then it is declared, "That the 
church permitteth the reading of the apocryphal books 
for devotion and instruction, but not for authority to 
decide matters of controversy in faith. And that 
there are no more than twenty-two canonical books of 
the Old Testament, and all besides are apocryphal." 



60 TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 

Thus we have the common judgment of the church, in 
the thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the de- 
cree of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth. But 
this is not all, for when the writers of this Grloss come 
to the apocryphal books, they prefix a caution, as — • 
"Here begins the book of Tobit, which is not in the 
Canon ;" — " Here begins the book of Judith, which is 
not in the Canon," and so of everyone of them; and 
to confirm their opinion, they appeal to the Fathers. 

Hugo, the Cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote 
commentaries on all the Scriptures, which were uni- 
versally esteemed ; in these he constantly keeps up the 
distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical 
books : and he explicitly declares that " Ecclesiasticus, 
Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are apoc- 
ryphal,^dubious, — not canonical, — not received by the 
church for proving any matters of faith, but for in- 
formation of manners." *" 

Thomas Aquinas also, the most famous of the school- 
men, makes the same distinction between these classes 
of books. He maintains that the book of Wisdom 
was not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes 
it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, he 
calls a fable ; and he shows clearly enough that he did 
not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of canonical autho- 
rity. 

In the fourteenth century no man acquired so exten- 
sive a reputation for his commentaries on the Bible, as 
Nicholas Lyra, a converted Jew. In his preface to 
the book of Tobit, he says, "That having commented 
on all the canonical books, from the beginning of 
Genesis to the end of Revelation, his intention now 
was to write on those books which are not canonical." 



TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 61 

Here he enumerates Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith, 
Tobit, and the Maccabees ; and then adds, " The ca- 
nonical books are not onlj before these in time but in 
dignity and authority." And again, ^^ These are not 
in the Canon, but received by the church to be read 
for instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding 
controversies respecting the faith ; whereas the others 
are of such authority that whatever they contain is to 
be held as undoubted truth." 

The Englishman, William Occam, of Oxford, ac- 
counted the most learned doctor of his age, in his 
Dialogues, acknowledges, " That that honor is due only 
to the divine writers of Scripture, that we should esteem 
them free from all error." Moreover, in his Prologues, 
he fully assents to the opinion of Jerome and Gregory, 
'' That neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Maccabees, 
nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, is to be received into 
the same place of honour as the inspired books; ^'for," 
says he, " the church doth not number them among 
the canonical Scriptures." 

In the fifteenth century, Thomas Anglicus, some- 
times called the Angelical Doctor on account of his 
excellent judgment, numbers twenty-four books of the 
Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from 
Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah. 

Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his 
conversion to Christianity, on account of his superior 
knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of 
Burgos, wrote notes on the Bible, in which he retains 
the same distinction of books which has been so often 
mentioned. 

The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found 
an authority for these disputed books in the Council 
6 



64 TESTIMONY OP ROMANISTS. 

Scriptures, he admonishes them to consider well, 
" That the church never intended to give the same 
authority to Tobit, Judith and Wisdom, which is given 
to the five books of Moses or the four Evangelists." 

The last testimony which we shall adduce to show 
that these books were not universally nor commonly 
received, until the very time of the Council of Trent, 
is that of Cardinal Cajetan, the oracle of the church 
of Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives 
us this as the rule of the church — " That those books 
which were canonical with Jerome should be so with 
us ; and that those which were not received as canoni- 
cal by him should be considered as excluded by us." 
And he says, " The church is much indebted to this 
Father for distinguishing between the books which are 
canonical and those which are not, for thus he has 
freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who other- 
wise might say that we had framed a new Canon for 
ourselves." For this reason he would write no com- 
mentaries on these apocryphal books ; " for," says he, 
"Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions 
to Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insuffi- 
cient to prove any matter of faith, though they may 
be read for the edifying of the people." 

From the copious citations of testimonies^ which we 
have given, it is evident that the books in dispute are 
apocryphal, and have no right to a place in the Canon ; 
and that the Council of Trent acted unwisely in de- 
creeing, with an anathema annexed, that they should 
be received as divine. Surely no council can make 
that an inspired book which was not written by inspi- 
ration. Certainly these books did not belong to the 
Canon while the apostles lived, for they were unknown 



TESTIMONY OF ROMANISTS. 65 

both to Jews and Christians. SiXTUS Sinensis, a 
distinguished Romanist, acknowledges that it was long 
after the time of the apostles, that these writings came 
to the knowledge of the whole Christian church. But 
while this is conceded, it does not terminate the con- 
troversy, for among the many extraordinary claims of 
the Romish church, one of the most extraordinary is 
the authority to add to the Canon of Holy Scripture. 
It has been made sufficiently manifest that these apoc- 
ryphal books were not included in the Canon during 
the first three centuries ; and can it be doubted whether 
the Canon was fully constituted before the fourth cen- 
tury ? To suppose that a Pope or a Council can make 
what books they please canonical, is too absurd to de- 
serve a moment's consideration. If, upon this princi- 
ple, they could render Tobit and Judith canonical, 
upon the same they might introduce Herodotus, Livy, 
or even the Koran itself. 



6* 



66 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 



SECTION V. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT CANONI- 
CAL THE WRITERS NOT PROPHETS, AND DO NOT CLAIM 



TO BE INSPIRED. 



I COME now to the fifth argument to disprove the 
canonical authority of these books, which is derived 
from internal evidence. Books which contain mani- 
fest falsehoods ; or which abound in silly and ridiculous 
stories ; or contradict the plain and uniform doctrine 
of acknowledged Scripture, cannot be canonical. Now 
I will endeavour to show, that the books in dispute, 
are all, or most of them, condemned by this rule. 

In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is made to 
tell a palpable falsehood — " I am Azarias, the son of 
Ananias the great, and of thy brethren ;"* by which 
Tobit was completely deceived, for he says, " Thou art 
of an honest and good stock." Now in chapter xii. 
this same angel declares, " I am Raphael, one of the 
seven Holy Angels, which present the prayers of the 
saints, and go in and out before the glory of the Holy 
One." 

Judith is represented as speaking scarcely anything 
but falsehood to Holof ernes ; but what is most incon- 
sistent with the character of piety given her, is, that 
she is made to pray to the God of truth, in the following 

* Tobit V. 12, 13. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 67 

words, " Smite by tlie deceit of my lips, the servant 
with the prince, and the prince with the servant." 
Who does not perceive, at once, the impiety of this 
prayer ? It is a petition that he who holds in utter 
detestation all falsehood, should give efficacy to pre- 
meditated deceit. This woman, so celebrated for her 
piety, is also made to speak with commendation of 
the conduct of Simeon, in the cruel slaughter of the 
Shechemites; an act, against which God, in the 
Scriptures, has expressed his high displeasure. 

In the second book of Maccabees, Razis, an elder 
of Jerusalem, is spoken of with high commendation, 
for destroying his own life, rather than fall into the 
hands of his enemies ; but, certainly, suicide is not, 
in any case, agreeable to the word of God. 

The author of the book of Wisdom, speaks in the 
name of Solomon, and talks about being appointed to 
build a temple in the holy mountain ; whereas it has 
been proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely 
ascribed to Solomon. 

In the book of Tobit, we have this story: "And as 
they went on their journey they came to the river 
Tigris, and they lodged there ; and when the young 
man went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of 
the river, and would have devoured him. Then the 
angel said unto him. Take the fish. And the young 
man laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To 
whom the angel said. Open the fish, and take the heart, 
and the liver, and the gall, and put them up safely. 
So the young man did as the angel commanded him, 
and when they had roasted the fish, they did eat it. 
Then the young man said unto the angel. Brother 
Azarias, to what use is the heart, and the liver, and the 



66 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 



SECTION V, 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT CANONI- 
CAL THE WRITERS NOT PROPHETS, AND DO NOT CLAIM 

TO BE INSPIRED. 

I COME now to the fifth argument to disprove the 
canonical authority of these books, which is derived 
from internal evidence. Books which contain mani- 
fest falsehoods ; or which abound in silly and ridiculous 
stories ; or contradict the plain and uniform doctrine 
of acknowledged Scripture, cannot be canonical. Now 
I will endeavour to show, that the books in dispute, 
are all, or most of them, condemned by this rule. 

In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is made to 
tell a palpable falsehood — " I am Azarias, the son of 
Ananias the great, and of thy brethren ;"* by which 
Tobit was completely deceived, for he says, '' Thou art 
of an honest and good stock." Now in chapter xii. 
this same angel declares, " I am Raphael, one of the 
seven Holy Angels, which present the prayers of the 
saints, and go in and out before the glory of the Holy 
One." 

Judith is represented as speaking scarcely anything 
but falsehood to Holofernes ; but what is most incon- 
sistent with the character of piety given her, is, that 
she is made to pray to the God of truth, in the following 

* Tobit V. 12, 13. 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 67 

words, " Smite by tlie deceit of my lips, the servant 
with the prince, and the prince with the servant." 
Who does not perceive, at once, the impiety of this 
prayer ? It is a petition that he who holds in utter 
detestation all falsehood, should give efficacy to pre- 
meditated deceit. This woman, so celebrated for her 
piety, is also made to speak with commendation of 
the conduct of Simeon, in the cruel slaughter of the 
Shechemites; an act, against which God, in the 
Scriptures, has expressed his high displeasure. 

In the second book of Maccabees, Razis, an elder 
of Jerusalem, is spoken of with high commendation, 
for destroying his own life, rather than fall into the 
hands of his enemies ; but, certainly, suicide is not, 
in any case, agreeable to the word of God. 

The author of the book of Wisdom, speaks in the 
name of Solomon, and talks about being appointed to 
build a temple in the holy mountain ; whereas it has 
been proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely 
ascribed to Solomon. 

In the book of Tobit, we have this story: *' And as 
they went on their journey they came to the river 
Tigris, and they lodged there ; and when the young 
man went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of 
the river, and would have devoured him. Then the 
angel said unto him. Take the fish. And the young 
man laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To 
whom the angel said. Open the fish, and take the heart, 
and the liver, and the gall, and put them up safely. 
So the young man did as the angel commanded him, 
and when they had roasted the fish, they did eat it. 
Then the young man said unto the angel. Brother 
Azarias, to what use is the heart, and the liver, and the 



68 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 

gall of the fisli ? And he said unto him, Touching the 
heart and the liver, if a devil, or an evil spirit trouble 
any, we must make a smoke t^hereof before the man 
or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed. 
As for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath 
whiteness in his eyes ; and he shall be healed."* If this 
story does not savour of the fabulous, then it would be 
difficult to find anything that did. 

In the book of Baruch, there are also several 
things which do not appear to be true. Baruch is 
said to have read this book, in the fifth year after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, in the ears of the 
king, and all the people dwelling in Babylon, who 
upon hearing it, collected money and sent it to Jeru- 
salem, to the priests. t Now Baruch, who is here 
alleged to have read this book in Babylon, is said, in the 
canonical Scriptures, to have been carried captive into 
Egypt, with Jeremiah, after the murder of Gedaliah. 
Jer. xliii. 6. Again, he is represented to have read in 
the ears of Jeconias the king, and of all the people ; but 
Jeconias is known to have been shut up in prison, at 
this time, and it is nowise probable that Baruch would 
have access to him, if he even had been in Babylon. 
The money that was sent from Babylon was to enable 
the priests to offer sacrifices to the Lord, but the tem- 
ple was in ruins, and, there was no altar. J 

In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we 
read, that " Mardocheus, in the second year of Ar- 
taxerxes the Great, was a great man, being a servitor 

* Tobit c. vi. t Baruch i. 1—6. 

X Baruch i. 10. " And they said, Behold we have sent you 
money to buy you burnt-offerings, and sin-offerings, and incense, 
and prepare ye manna, and offer upon the altar of the Lord our 
God." 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 69 

in the king's court." And in the same, ^'That he was 
also one of the captives which Nabuchodonosor carried 
from Jerusalem, with Jeconias, king of Judea." Now, 
between these two periods, there intervened one hun- 
dred and fifty years ; so that, if he was only fifteen 
years of age, when carried away, he must have been 
a servitor in the king's court, at the age of one hun- 
dred and seventy-five years ! 

Again, Mardocheus is represented as being " a great 
man in the court, in the second year of Artaxerxes," 
before he detected the conspiracy against the king's 
life. Now, Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus were the same, 
or they were not ; if the former, this history clashes 
with the Scriptural account, for there it appears, that 
Mordecai was not, before this time, a courtier, or a 
conspicuous man ; if the latter, then this addition is 
manifestly false, because it ascribes to Artaxerxes, 
what the Scriptures ascribe to another person. 

Moreover, this apocryphal writing places the con- 
spiracy against the king's life before the repudiation 
of Vashti and the marriage of Esther; but this is 
repugnant to the canonical Scriptures. 

It is also asserted, in this book, (see chap, xvi.) that 
Mardocheus received honours and rewards for the 
detection of the conspiracy ; whereas, in the Canonical 
book of Esther, it is declared, that he received no re- 
ward. And a different reason is assigned, in the two 
books, for Haman's hatred of Mordecai. In the 
canonical, it is his neglect of showing respect to this 
proud courtier ; in the apocryphal, it is the punish- 
ment of the two eunuchs, Avho had formed the con- 
spiracy. 

And finally, Haman, in this spurious work, is called 



70 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 

a Macedonian ; and it is said, that he meditated the 
design of transferring the Persian kingdom to the 
Macedonians. But this is utterly incredible. The 
kingdom of Macedon must have been, at that time, 
most obscure, and probably wholly unknown, at the 
Persian court. But this is not all : he who is here 
called a Macedonian, is in the canonical book said to 
be an Agagite. The proof of the apocryphal charac- 
ter of this addition to Esther, which has been adduced, 
is in all reason sufficient. 

The advocates of these books are greatly perplexed 
to find a place in the history of the Jewish nation, for 
the wonderful deliverance wrought by means of Judith. 
It seems strange that no allusion is made to this event 
in any of the acknowledged books of Scripture ; and 
more unaccountable still, that Josephus, who was so 
much disposed to relate everything favourable to the 
character of his nation, should never make the least 
mention of it. Some refer this history to the period 
preceding the Babylonish captivity ; while others are 
of opinion, that the events occurred in the time of 
Cambyses, king of Persia. But the name of the high 
priest here mentioned, does not occur with the names 
of the high priests contained in any of the genealogies. 
From the time of the building of the temple of Solomon, 
to its overthrow by the Assyrians, this name is not 
found in the list of high priests, as may be seen by 
consulting the vi. chapter of 1 Chronicles ; nor, in the 
catalogue given by Josephus, in the tenth chapter 
of the tenth book of his Antiquities. That this history 
cannot be placed after the captivity, is manifest, from 
this circumstance, that the temple of Solomon was still 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 71 

standing when the transactions which are related in 
this book occurred. 

Another thing in the hook of Judith, which is very 
suspicious, is, that Holofernes is represented as saying, 
" Tell me now, ye sons of Canaan, who this people 
is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the 
cities that they inhabit." But how can it be reconciled 
with known history, that a prince of Persia should be 
wholly ignorant of the Jewish people ? 

It is impossible to reconcile what is said, in the close 
of the book, with any sound principles of chronology. 
Judith is represented as young and beautiful, when 
she slew Holofernes ; but here it is said, " That she 
waxed old in her husband's house, being an hundred 
and five years old. And there was none that made 
the children of Israel any more afraid, in the days of 
Judith nor a long time after her death." In whose 
reign, or at what period, we would ask, did the Jews 
enjoy this long season of uninterrupted tranquillity ? 

Some writers who are fully convinced that the his- 
tory of Judith cannot be reconciled with authentic 
history, if taken literally, are of opinion, that it contains 
a beautiful allegory ; — that Bethulia, {the virgin,) 
represents the church of God ; that the assault of 
Nebuchadnezzar signifies the opposition of the world 
and its prince ; that the victory obtained by a pious 
woman, is intended to teach, that the church's deli- 
verance is not efi'ected by human might or power, but 
by the prayers and the piety of the saints, &c. This, 
perhaps, is the most favourable view which we can 
take of this history : but take it as you will, it is clear 
that the book is apocryphal, and has no right to a place 
in the sacred Canon. 



72 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 

Between the first and second books of Maccabees, 
there is a palpable contradiction ; for in the first book 
it is said, that " Judas died in the one hundred and 
fifty-second year :" but in the second, " that in the one 
hundred and eighty-eighth year, the people that were 
in Judea, and Judas, and the council, sent greeting 
and health unto Aristobulus." Thus, Judas is made 
to join in sending a letter, six-and-thirty years after his 
death ! The contradiction is manifest. In the same 
first chapter of the second book, there is a story inserted 
which has very much the air of a fable. " For when 
our fathers were led into Persia, the priests that were 
then devout, took the fire of the altar privily and hid 
it in a hollow place of a pit without water, where they 
kept it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. 
Now after many years, when it pleased God, Nehe- 
mias, being sent from the king of Persia, did send of 
the posterity of those priests that had hid it, to the fire : 
but when they told us they found no fire, but thick 
water, then commanded he them to draw it up and 
bring it, and when the sacrifice was laid on, Nehemias 
commanded the priests to sprinkle the wood and things 
laid thereon, with the water. When this was done 
and the time came that the sun shone, which before 
was hid in the clouds, a great fire was kindled." 2 
Mac. ix. But the Jews were not carried to Persia but 
to Babylon, and the rest of the story has no founda- 
tion, whatever, in truth. 

In the second chapter we have another fabulous 
story of Jeremiah's taking the ark and altar, and altar 
of incense, to mount Pisgah, and hiding them in a 
hollow cave, and closing them up. This place Jere- 
miah declared should be unknown, <' until the time 



INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 73 

that God gathered his people again together, and re- 
ceived them into mercy; when the cloud as it ap- 
peared unto Moses, should appear again." 1 Mac. 
viii. 16. 

There is another contradiction between these books 
of Maccabees, in relation to the death of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. In the first, it is said, that he died at 
Eljmais, in Persia, in the hundred and forty-ninth 
year ; but, in the second book, it is related, that after 
entering Persepolis, with a view of overthrowing the 
temple and city, he was repulsed by the inhabitants ; 
and while on his journey from this place, he was 
seized with a dreadful disease of the bowels, and died 
in the mountains. 1 Mac. vi. ; 2 Mac. ix. 

Moreover, the accounts given of Nicanor, in the 
seventh chapter of the first book, and in the fourteenth 
and fifteenth chapters of the second book, are totally 
inconsistent. 

In the first book of Maccabees an erroneous account 
is given of the civil government of the Romans, where 
it is said, " That they committed their government to 
one man every year, who ruled over all their country, 
and that all were obedient to that one." Whereas, it 
is well known, that no such form of government ever 
existed among the Romans. 

Finally, it is manifest that these books were not 
inspired, and therefore not canonical, because they 
were not written by prophets ; but by men who speak 
of their labours in a way wholly incompatible with in- 
spiration. 

Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus 
was the author of the books of the Maccabees ; but it 
has never been supposed by any, that he was an in- 
7 



74 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN 

spired man ; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these 
books are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or 
Wars of the Jews, by the same author. 

It has been the constant tradition of Jews and 
Christians, that the spirit of prophecy ceased with 
Malachi, until the appearance of John the Baptist. 
Malachi has, on this account, been called by the Jews, 
" the seal of the prophets." 

Josephus, in his book against Apion, after saying 
that it belonged to the prophets alone, to write inspired 
books, adds these words, "From the time of Artax- 
erxes, there were some among us, who wrote books 
even to our own times, but these are not of equal 
authority with the preceding, because the succession 
of prophets was not complete." 

EuSEBius, in giving a catalogue of the leaders of the 
Jews, denies that he can proceed any lower than 
Zerubbabel, "Because," says he, "after the return 
from captivity until the advent of our Saviour, there 
is no book which can be esteemed sacred." 

Augustine gives a similar testimony. "After Mala- 
chi the Jews had no prophet, during that whole period, 
which intervened between the return from captivity 
and the advent of our Saviour." 

Neither does Genebrard dissent from this opinion. 
" From Marlachi to John the Baptist," say& he, " no 
prophets existed." 

Drusius cites the following words, from the Com- 
piler of the Jewish History, " The rest of the discourses 
of Simon and his wars, and the wars of his brother, 
are they not written in the book of Joseph, the son 
of Gorion, and in the book of the Asmoneans, and in 
the books of the Roman kings ?" Here the books of 



BY INSPIRED MEN. 75 

the Maccabees are placed between the writings of 
Josephus and the Roman history. 

The book of Wisdom does indeed claim to be the 
work of Solomon, an inspired man ; but this claim 
furnishes the strongest ground for its condemnation. 
It is capable of the clearest proof from internal evi- 
dence, that this was the production of some person, 
probably a Hellenistic Jew, who lived long after the 
Canon of the Old Testament was completed. It con- 
tains manifest allusions to Grecian customs, and is 
tinctured with the Grecian philosophy. The manner 
in which the author praises himself is fulsome, and 
has no parallel in an inspired writer. This book has 
been ascribed to Philo Judaeus ; and if this conjecture be 
correct, doubtless it has no just claim to be considered 
a canonical book. But whoever was the author, his 
endeavouring to pass his composition off for the writ- 
ing of Solomon, is sufficient to decide every question 
respecting his inspiration. If Solomon had written 
this book, it would have been found in the Jewish 
Canon, and in the Hebrew language. The writer is 
also guilty of shameful flattery to his own nation, which 
is entirely repugnant to the spirit of all the prophets. 
He has also, without any foundation, added many 
things to the sacred narration, contained in the canoni- 
cal history ; and has mingled with it much which is of 
the nature of poetical embellishment. And, indeed, 
the whole style of the composition savours too much 
of artificial eloquence, to be attributed to the Spirit 
of God ; the constant characteristic of vfhose produc- 
tions is, simplicity and sublimity. 

Ecclesiasticus, which is superior to all the other 
apocryphal books, was written by one Jesus the son 



76 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN 

of Sirach. His grandfather, of tlie same name, it 
seems, had written a book, which he left to his son 
Sirach ; and he delivered it to his son Jesus, who took 
great pains to reduce it into order ; but he no where 
assumes the character of a prophet himself, nor does 
he claim it for the original author, his grandfather. 
In the prologue, he says. " My grandfather, Jesus, 
when he had much given himself to the reading of the 
law and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, 
and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on 
also himself to write something pertaining to learning 
and wisdom, to the intent that those which are desir- 
ous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might 
profit much more, in living according to the law. 
Wherefore let me entreat you to read it with favour 
and attention, and to pardon us wherein we may seem 
to come short of some words which we have laboured 
to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, 
and translated into another tongue, have not the same 
force in them. For in the eight-and-thirtieth year,, 
coming into Egypt when Euergetes was king, and 
continuing there for some time, I found a book of no 
small learning : therefore I thought it most necessary 
for me to bestow some diligence and travail to inter- 
pret it ; using great watchfulness, and skill, in that 
space, to bring the book to an end," &c. Surely 
there is no need of further arguments to prove that 
this modest author did not claim to be inspired. 

The author of the second book of the Maccabees pro- 
fesses to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene, con- 
sisting of five volumes, into one volume. Concerning 
which work, he says, ''therefore to us that have 
taken upon us this painful labour of abridging, it was 



BY INSPIRED MEN. 77 

not easy, but a matter of sweat and watching." Again, 
" leaving to the author the exact handling of every 
particular, and labouring to follow the rules of an 
abridgment — to stand upon every point, and go over 
things at large, and to be curious in particulars, 
belongeth to the first author of the story ; but to use 
brevity, and avoid much labouring of the work, is to 
be granted to him that maketh an abridgment." Is 
any thing more needed to prove that this writer did 
not profess to be inspired ? If there was any inspira- 
tion in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of 
Cyrene, the original writer of the history; — but his 
work is long since lost, and we now possess only the 
abridgment which cost the writer so much labour and 
pains. Thus, I think it sufficiently appears, that the 
authors of these disputed books were not prophets ; 
and that, as far as we can ascertain the circumstances 
in which they wrote, they did not lay claim to inspira- 
tion, but expressed themselves in such a way, as no 
man under the influence of inspiration ever did. 

The Popish writers, to evade the force of the argu- 
ments of their adversaries, pretend that there was a 
two-fold Canon; that some of the books of Scripture 
are proto-canonical ; and others deutero-canonical. If, 
by this distinction, they only meant that the word 
Canon was often used by the Fathers, with great lati- 
tude, so as to include all books that were ever read in 
the churches, or that were contained in the volume of 
the Greek Bible, the distinction is correct, and signi- 
fies the same, as is often expressed, by calling some 
books sacred and canonical, and others, ecclesiastical. 
But these writers make it manifest that they mean 
much more than this. They wish to put their deute- 



78 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN 

ro-canonical books, on a level with the old Jewish 
Canon ; and this distinction is intended to teach, that 
after the first Canon was constituted, other books 
were, from time to time, added : but when these books 
thus annexed to the Canon have been pronounced upon 
by the competent authority, they are to be received 
as of equal authority with the former. When this 
second Canon was constituted, is a matter concern- 
ing which they are not agreed ; some pretend, that in 
the time of Shammai and Hillel^ two famous rabbles, 
who lived before the advent of the Saviour, these 
books w^ere added to the Canon. But why then are 
they not included in the Hebrew Canon ? Why does 
Josephus never mention them ? Why are they never 
quoted nor alluded to in the New Testament ? And 
why did all the earlier Fa,thers omit to cite them, 
or expressly reject them ? The difficulties of this 
theory being too prominent, the most of the advocates 
of the apocrypha, suppose, that these books, after hav- 
ing remained in doubt before, were received by the 
supreme authority of the church, in the fourth century. 
They allege, that these books were sanctioned by the 
council of Nice, and by the third council of Carthage, 
which met A. D. 397. But the story of the method 
pursued by the council of Nice, to distinguish between 
canonical and spurious books, is fabulous and ridiculous. 
There is nothing in the Canons of that council relative 
to these books ; and certainly, they cited no authori- 
ties from them, in confirmation of the doctrines estab- 
lished by them. And as to the third council of Carthage, 
it may be asked, what authority had this provincial 
synod to determine anything for the whole church, 
respecting the Canon ? But there is no certainty that 



BY 11!^ SPIRED MEN. 79 

this council did determine anything on the subject; 
for in the same Canon, there is mention made of Pope 
Boniface, as living at that time, whereas he did not 
rise to this dignity, until more than twenty years after- 
wards ; in which time, three other popes occupied the 
See of Rome ; so that this Canon could not have been 
formed by the third council of Carthage. And in 
some copies .^t is inserted, as the fourteenth of the 
seventh cj^uyafcil of Carthage. However this may be, 
we may bi^on'fident, that no council of the fourth cen- 
tury had any authority to add to the Canon of Scrip- 
ture, books which were not only not received before, but 
explicitly rejected as apocryphal, by most of the 
Fathers. Our opponents say, that these books were 
uncertain before, but now received confirmation. How 
could there be any uncertainty, in regard to these 
books, if the church was as infallible, in the first three 
ages, as in the fourth. These books were either 
canonical before the fourth century, or they were not : 
if the former, how came it to pass that they were not 
recognized by the apostles ? How came they to be 
overlooked and rejected by the primitive Fathers? 
But if they were not canonical before, they must have 
been made canonical by the decree of some council. 
That is, the church can make that an inspired book, 
which was never given by inspiration. This absurdity 
was mentioned before, but it deserves to be repeated, 
because, however unreasonable it may be, it forms the 
true, and almost the only ground, on which the doc- 
trine of the Romish church, in regard to these apocry- 
phal books, rests. This is, indeed, a part of the 
Pope's supremacy. Some of their best writers, how- 
ever, deny this doctrine; and whatever others may 



80 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN 

pretend, it is most certain, that the Fathers, with one 
consent, believed that the Canon of sacred Scripture 
was complete in their time : they never dreamed of 
books not then canonical, becoming such, bj any 
authority upon earth. Indeed, the idea of adding to 
the Canon, what did not, from the beginning, belong 
to it, never seems to have entered the mind of any 
person in former times. If this doctrine were correct, 
we might still have additions made to the Canon, and 
that too, of books which have existed for hundreds of 
years. 

This question may be brought to a speedy issue, 
with all unprejudiced judges. These books were 
either written by divine inspiration for the guidance 
of the church in matters of faith and practice, or they 
were not ; if the former, they always had a right to a 
place in the Canon ; if the latter, no act of a pope or 
council could render that divine, which was not so 
before. It would be to change the nature of a fact, 
than which nothing is more impossible. 

It is alleged, with much confidence, that the Greek 
Bibles, used by the Fathers, contained these books ; 
and, therefore, whenever they give their testimony to 
the sacred Scriptures, these are included. This argu- 
ment proves too much, for the third book of Esdras 
and the Prayer of Manasses were contained in these 
volumes, but these are rejected by the Romanists. 
The truth, however, is, that these books were not 
originally connected with the Septuagint ; they were 
probably introduced into some of the later Greek ver- 
sions, which were made by heretics. These versions, 
particularly that of Theodotion^ came to be used pro- 
miscuously with that of the LXX ; and to this day, 



BY INSPIRED MEN. 81 

the common copies contain tlie version of tlie book of 
Daniel by Theodotion, instead of that by the LXX. 

By some such means, these apocryphal books crept 
into the Greek Bible ; but the early Fathers were 
careful to distinguish them from the canonical Scrip- 
tures, as we have already seen. That they were 
read in the churches, is also true ; but not as Scrip- 
ture ; not for the confirmation of doctrine, but for 
the edification of the common people. 

Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as author- 
ity, but very seldom, and the reason which rendered 
it difficult for them to distinguish accurately between 
ecclesiastical and canonical books has already been 
given. These pious men were generally unacquainted 
with Hebrew literature, and finding all these books in 
Greek, and frequently bound up in the same volume 
with the canonical Scriptures, and observing that they 
contained excellent rules for the direction of life and 
the regulation of morals, they sometimes referred to 
them, and cited passages from them, and permitted 
them to be read in the church, for the instruction and 
edification of the people. 

But the more learned of the Fathers, who examined 
into the authority of the sacred books with unceasing 
diligence, clearly marked the distinction between such 
books as were canonical, and such as were merely hu- 
man compositions. And some of them even disap- 
proved of the reading of these apocryphal books by 
the people ; and some councils warned the chui'ches 
against them. It was with this single view that so 
many catalogues of the canonical books were prepared 
and published. 

Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains 



82 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN 

to show that the books called apocrypha, are not 
canonical, we wish to avoid the opposite extreme of 
regarding them as useless, or injurious. Some of these 
hooks are important for the historical information 
which they contain ; and, especially, as the facts re- 
corded in them, are, in some instances, the fulfilment 
of remarkable prophecies. 

Others of them are replete with sacred, moral, and 
prudential maxims, very useful to aid in the regulation 
of life and manners ; but even with these, are inter- 
spersed sentiments, which are not perfectly accordant 
with the word of God. In short, these books are of 
very different value, but in the best of them there is so 
much error and imperfection, as to convince us, that 
they are human productions, and should be used as 
such : not as an infallible rule, but as useful helps in 
the attainment of knowledge, and in the practice of 
virtue. Therefore, when we would exclude them from 
a place in the Bible, we would not proscribe them 
as unfit to be read ; but we would have them published 
in a separate volume, and studied much more carefully 
than they commonly have been. 

And while we would dissent from the practice of 
reading lessons from these books, as Scriptural lessons 
are read in the church, we would cordially recommend 
the frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Macca- 
bees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and above all Ecclesias- 
ticus. 

It is a dishonour to God, and a disparagement of his 
word, to place other books, in any respect on a level 
with the divine oracles ; but it is a privilege to be 
permitted, to have access to the writings of men, emi- 
nent for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a 



BY INSPIRED MEN. 83 

matter of curious instruction to learn, wliat were the 
opinions of men, in ages long past, and in countries 
far remote. 

The infallibility of the church of Rome is clearly 
proved to be without foundation, by the decree of the 
Council of Trent, canonizing the apocrypha. If we 
have been successful in proving that these books are 
not canonical, the infallibility of both popes and coun- 
cils is overthrown ; for if they erred in one instance, 
it proves that the doctrine is false. One great incon- 
venience of this doctrine is, that when that church 
falls into any error, she can never retract it ; for 
that would be to acknowledge her fallibility. 

Some allege that the church of Rome is not now 
what she was in former years ; but that she has laid aside 
opinions formerly entertained. But this allegation is 
inconsistent with her claim to infallibility. According 
to this, the church of Rome has never erred ; what she 
has declared to be true at any time she must forever 
maintain to be true ; or give up her pretensions to in- 
fallibility. In regard to the Apocrypha, it is immate- 
rial, whether the infallibility be supposed to reside in 
the pope or in a council ; or in the pope and council 
united ; for the council of Trent is considered to be an 
oecumenical council regularly constituted ; and all 
its acts were sanctioned by the popes. Their error 
in pronouncing the apocrypha canonical, is decisive as 
to the infallibility of the church. 



84 NO CANONICAL BOOK HAS BEEN LOST. 



SECTION VI. 



NO CANONICAL BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS BEEN 
LOST. 

On this subject there has existed some diversity of 
opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine, as say- 
ing, " That many of the writings of the prophets had 
perished, which may readily be proved from the his- 
tory in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and 
not only negligent but impious, so that some books 
were lost through carelessness, and others were burned, 
or otherwise destroyed." 

In confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made 
to 1 Kings iv. 32, 33, where it is said of Solomon, 
" That he spake three thousand proverbs, and his 
songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of 
trees, from the cedar in Lebanon, even unto the 
hyssop, that springeth out of the wall : he spake also 
of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of 
fishes." All these productions, it is acknowledged, 
have perished. 

Again it is said in 1 Chron. xxix. 29, 30. " Now 
the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they 
are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the 
book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad 
the seer ; with all his reign, and his might, and the 
times that went over him, and over Israel, and over all 



NO CANONICAL BOOK HAS BEEN LOST. 85 

the kingdoms of the countries." The book of Jasher, 
also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x. 
13, " And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, 
until the people had avenged themselves on their 
enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher ?" 
And in 2 Sam. i. 18, " And he bade them teach the 
children of Israel the use of the bow: behold it is 
written in the book of Jasher." 

The book of the Wars of the Lord is referred to, in 
Num. xxi. 14. But we have in the Canon no books 
under the name of Nathan and Gad : nor any book 
of Jasher ; nor of the Wars of the Lord. 

Moreover, we frequently are referred, in the sacred 
history, to other chronicles or annals, for a fuller ac- 
count of the matters spoken of, which Chronicles are 
not now extant. 

And in 2 Chron. ix. 29, it is said, " Now the rest of 
the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not writ- 
ten in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the 
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions 
of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?" 
Now it is well known, that none of these writings of 
the prophets are in the Canon ; at least, none of them 
under their names. 

It is said also in 2 Chron. xii. 15, " Now the acts 
of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in 
the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the 
seer, concerning genealogies?" Of which works no- 
thing remains, under the names of these prophets. 

1. The first observation which I would make on 

this subject, is, that every book referred to, or quoted 

in the sacred writings, is not necessarily an inspired, 

or canonical book. Because Paul cites passages from 

8 



86 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must re- 
ceive their poems as inspired. 

2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and 
yet be neither inspired nor canonical. Inspiration 
was not constantly afforded to the prophets, but was 
occasional, and for particular important purposes. In 
common matters, and especially in things noways 
connected with religion, it is reasonable to suppose, 
that the prophets and apostles were left to the same 
guidance of reason and common sense, as other men. 
A man, therefore, inspired to deliver some prophecy, 
or even to write a canonical book, might write other 
books, with no greater assistance than other good men 
receive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some 
canonical books, it does not follow, that what he wrote 
on natural history, was also inspired. The Scrip- 
tures, however, do not say, that his three thousand 
proverbs, and his discourses on natural history, were 
ever committed to writing. It only says, that he spake 
these things. But supposing that all these discourses 
were committed to writing, which is not improbable, 
there is not the least reason for believing that they 
were inspired, any more than Solomon's private letters 
to his friends, if he ever wrote any. Let it be remem- 
bered, that the prophets and apostles were only inspired 
on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all 
difficulties respecting such works as these will vanish. 
How many of the books referred to in the Bible, and 
mentioned above, may have been of this description, it 
is now impossible to tell ; but probably several of them 
belong to this class. No doubt there were many books 
of annals, much more minute and particular in the 
narration of facts, than those wliich we have. It was 



HAS BEEN LOST. 87 

often enough to refer to these state papers^ or public 
documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to 
the facts on account of which the reference was made. 
There is nothing derogatory to the word of God, in 
the supposition that the books of Kings and Chronicles, 
which we have in the Canon, were compiled by the 
inspired prophets from these public records. All that 
is necessary for us, is, that the facts are truly related ; 
and this could be as infallibly secured on this hypo- 
thesis, as on any other. 

The book of the Wars of the Lord, might for aught 
that appears, have been merely a muster roll of the 
army. The word translated hook has so extensive a 
meaning in Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to 
suppose, that it was a writing at all. The book of 
Jasher^ (or of rectitude^ if we translate the word,) 
might have been some useful compend taken from 
Scripture, or composed by the wise, for the regulation 
of justice and equity, between man and man. 

Augustine, in his City of God, has distinguished 
accurately on this subject. " I think," says he, "that 
those books which should have authority in religion 
were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men com- 
posed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did 
these by inspiration. And these two classes of books 
are so distinct, that it is only of those written by in- 
spiration, that we are to suppose God, through them, 
to be speaking unto us. The one class is useful for 
fulness of knowledge ; the other for authority in reli- 
gion ; in which authority the Canon is preserved." 

3. But again, it may be maintained, without any 
prejudice to the completeness of the Canon, that there 
may have been inspired writings which were not in- 



88 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

tended for the instruction of the church in all ages, 
but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. 
These writings, though inspired, were not canonical. 
They were temporary in their design, and when that 
was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We 
know that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many 
discourses to the people, of which we have not a trace 
on record. Many true prophets are mentioned, who 
wrote nothing that we know of ; and several are men- 
tioned, whose names are not even given. The same 
is true of the apostles. Very few of them had any 
concern in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet 
they all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they 
wrote letters, on special occasions, to the churches 
planted by them ; yet these were not designed for the 
perpetual instruction of the universal church. There- 
fore ShemaiaJi^ and Iddo^ and Nathan^ and G-ad, 
might have written some things by inspiration, which 
were never intended to form a part of the Sacred 
Volume. It is not asserted, that there certainly existed 
such temporary inspired writings : all that is necessary 
to be maintained, is, that supposing such to have ex- 
isted, which is not improbable, it does not follow 
that the Canon is incomplete, by reason of their loss. 
As this opinion may be startling to some, who have 
not thoroughly considered it, I will call in to its sup- 
port the opinions of some distinguished theologians. 

" It has been observed," says Francis Junius, "that 
it is one thing to call a book sacred, another to say 
that it is canonical ; for every book was sacred which 
was edited by a prophet, or apostle ; but it does not 
follow that every such sacred book is canonical, and 



HAS BEEN LOST. 89 

was designed for the whole body of the church. For 
example, it is credible that Isaiah the prophet wrote 
many things, as a prophet, which were truly inspired, 
but those writings only were canonical, which God 
consecrated to the treasure of the church, and which 
by special direction were added to the public Canon. 
Thus Paul and the other apostles may have written 
many things, by divine inspiration, which are not now 
extant ; but those only are canonical, which were 
placed in the Sacred Volume, for the use of the uni- 
versal church : which Canon received the approbation 
of the apostles, especially of John, who so long pre- 
sided over the churches in Asia."* 

The evangelical WiTSius, of an age somewhat 
later, delivers his opinion on this point, in the follow- 
ing manner : " No one, I think, can doubt, but that all 
the apostles in the diligent exercise of their office, wrote 
frequent letters to the churches under their care, when 
they could not be present with them ; and to whom 
they might often wish to communicate some instruc- 
tion necessary for them in the circumstances in 
which they were placed. It would seem to me to 
be injurious to the reputation of those faithful and 
assiduous men, to suppose, that not one of them ever 
wrote any epistle, or addressed to a church, any 
writing, except those few, whose epistles are in the 
Canon. Now, as Peter, and Paul, and James, and 
John, were induced to write to the churches, on ac- 
count of the need in which they stood of instruction, 
why would not the same necessity induce the other 
apostles to write to the churches under their care? 
Nor is there any reason why we should complain of 
* Explic. in Numb. xxi. 



90 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

the great loss which we have sustained, because these 
precious documents have perished ; it is rather matter 
of gratitude, that so many have been preserved by the 
provident benevolence of God towards us, and so 
abundantly sufficient to instruct us, in the things per- 
taining to salvation."* 

Although I have cited this passage from this excel- 
lent and orthodox theologian, in favour of the senti- 
ment advanced ; yet I do not feel at liberty to go the 
whole length of his opinion, here expressed. There is 
no reason to think, that any of the other apostles com- 
posed such works, as those which constitute the Canon 
of the New Testament. If they had, some of them 
would have been preserved, or at least, some memo- 
rial of such writings would have been handed down, 
in those churches to which they were addressed. 
These churches received and preserved the canonical 
books of those whose writings we have, and why should 
they neglect, or suffer to sink into oblivion, similar 
writings of apostles, from whom they first received 
the gospel ? 

Indeed, after all, this argument is merely hypotheti- 
cal, and would be sufficient to answer the objections 
which might be made, if it could be proved, that some 
inspired writings had perished ; but, in fact, there is 
no proof that any such ever existed. It is, therefore, 
highly probable, that we are in actual possession of all 
the books penned under the plenary inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit. 

The last remark which I shall make in relation to 
the books of the Old Testament supposed to be lost, 
is, that it is highly probable that we have several of 
* Meletera, De Vita Pauli. 



HAS BEEN LOST. 91 

them now in the Canon, under another name. The 
books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, were, 
probably, not written by one, but by a succession of 
prophets. 

There is reason to believe, that until the Canon of 
the Old Testament was closed, the succession of pro- 
phets was never interrupted. Whatever was necessary 
to be added, by way of explanation, to any book 
already received into the Canon, they were competent 
to annex ; or, whatever annals or histories, it was the 
purpose of God to have transmitted to posterity, they 
w^ould be directed and inspired to prepare. Thus^ 
different parts of these books might have been penned 
by G-adj Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, ^c. 

That some parts of these histories were prepared by 
prophets, we have clear proof, in one instance ; for, 
Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy several chapters, 
which are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think, 
there can be no doubt, were originally written by 
himself. See 2 Kings xviii. xix. xx., compared with 
Isaiah xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii. 

The Jewish doctors are of opinion, that the book of 
Jasher, is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the 
whole law. 

The book of the Wars of the Lord has by many 
been supposed to be no other than the book of 
Numbers. 

Thus, I think, it sufficiently appears, from an ex- 
amination of particulars, that there exists no evidence, 
that any canonical book of the Old Testament has 
been lost. To which we may add, that there are 
many general considerations of great weight, which go 



92 NO CANONCAL BOOK 

to prove, that no part of the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament has been lost. 

The first is, that God by his providence would pre- 
serve from destruction books given by inspiration, and 
intended for the perpetual instruction of his church. 
It is reasonable to think, that he would not suJffer his 
gracious purpose to be frustrated ; and this argument, 
a priori, is greatly strengthened by the fact, that a 
remarkable providential care has been exercised in the 
preservation of the Sacred Scriptures. It is truly 
wonderful, that so many books should have been pre- 
served unmutilated, through hundreds and thousands 
of years ; and during vicissitudes so great ; and espe- 
cially when powerful tyrants were so desirous of anni- 
hilating the religion of the Jews, and used their utmost 
exertions to destroy their sacred books. 

Another consideration of great weight is, the reli- 
gious, and even scrupulous care, with which the Jews, 
as far as we can trace the history of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures, have watched over their preservation. There 
can, I think, be little doubt, that they exercised the 
same vigilance during that period of their history of 
which we have no monuments. 

The translation of these books into Greek, is suffi- 
cient to show, that the same books existed nearly three 
hundred years before the advent of Christ. 

And above all, the unqualified testimony to the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his 
apostles, ought to satisfy us, that we have lost none 
of the inspired books of the Canon. 

The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and quoted 
as infallible authority, by them, as we have before 



HAS BEEN LOST. 93 

shown. These oracles were committed to the Jews as 
a sacred deposit, and they are never charged with un- 
faithfulness in this trust. The Scriptures are de- 
clared to have been written for our learning ; and no 
intimation is given that they had ever been mutilated, 
or in any degree corrupted. 



94 ORAL LAW or THE JEWS 



SECTION VIL 



THE ORAL LAAV OF THE JEWS WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 

However the Jews may seem to agree with us, in 
regard to the Canon of the Old Testament, this con- 
cord relates only to the written law ; for they obsti- 
nately persist in maintaining, that besides the law 
which was engraven on tables of stone, and the other 
precepts, and ordinances, which were communicated 
to Moses, and were ordered to be written, God gave 
unto him another Law, explanatory of the first, which 
he was commanded not to commit to writing, but to 
deliver down by oral tradition. 

The account which the Jewish doctors give of the 
first communication and subsequent delivery of this 
law, is found in the Talmud. It is there stated, that 
during the whole day, while Moses continued on the 
mount, he was learning the written law, but at night 
he was occupied in receiving the oral law. 

When Moses descended from the mount, they say, 
that he first called Aaron into his tent, and communi- 
cated to him all that he had learned of this oral law ; 
then he placed him on his right hand. Next he called 
in Eliezer and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and re- 
peated the whole to them ; on which they also took 
their seats, the one on his right hand, the other on his 
left. After this the seventy elders entered, and re- 
ceived the same instruction as Aaron and his sons. 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 95 

And finally, the same communication was made to the 
whole multitude of people. Then Moses arose and 
departed, and Aaron, who had now heard the whole 
four times, repeated what he had learned, and also 
withdrew. In the same manner, Eliezer and Ithamar, 
each in turn, went over the same ground, and departed. 
And finally, the seventy elders repeated the whole to 
the people ; every one of whom delivered what he had 
heard to his neighbour. Thus, according to Maimo- 
NiDES, was the oral law first given. 

The Jewish account of its transmission to posterity 
is no less particular. They pretend that Moses, 
when forty years had elapsed from the time of the 
Israelites leaving Egypt, called all the people, and 
telling them that his end drew near, requested that if 
any of them had forgotten aught of what he had de- 
livered to them, they should repair to him, and he 
would repeat to them anew what they might have for- 
gotten. And they tell us, that from the first day of 
the eleventh month, to the sixth day of the twelfth, he 
was occupied in nothing else than repeating and ex- 
plaining the law to the people. 

But, in a special manner, he committed this law to 
Joshua, by whom it was communicated, shortly before 
his death, to Phineas, the son of Eliezer ; by Phineas, 
to Eli ; by Eli, to Samuel ; by Samuel, to David and 
Ahijah; by Ahijah, to Elijah; by Elijah, to Elisha ; 
by Elisha, to Jehoiada ; by Jehoiada, to Zechariah ; by 
Zecljariah to Hosea ; by Hosea, to Amos ; by Amos, 
to Isaiah ; by Isaiah, to Micah ; by Micah, to Joel ; 
by Joel, to Nahum ; by Nahum, to Habakkuk ; by 
Habakkuk, to Zephaniah ; by Zephaniah, to Jeremiah ; 
by Jeremiah, to Baruch ; by Baruch, to Ezra, the pre- 



96 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS 

sident of the great synagogue. By Ezra, this law was 
delivered to the high priest Jaddua ; by Jaddua, to 
Antigonus ; by Antigonus, to Joseph son of John, and 
Joseph son of Jehezer; by these to Aristobulus, and 
Joshua the son of Perechiah ; by them to Judah son 
of Tibceus, and Simeon son of Satah. Thence to 
Shemaiah — to Hillel — to Simeon his son, supposed 
to have been the same who took our Saviour in his 
arms, in the temple, when brought thither to be pre- 
sented by his parents. From Simeon, it passed to 
Gamaliel, the preceptor, as it is supposed, of Paul. 
Then to Simeon his son ; and finally, to the son of 
Simeon, Judah Hakkadosh, by whom it was com- 
mitted to writing. 

But, although, the above list brings down an un- 
broken succession, from Moses to Judah the Holy, 
yet to render the tradition still more certain, the 
Jewish doctors inform us, that this oral law was also 
committed, in a special manner, to the high priests, 
and handed down, through their line, until it was com- 
mitted to writing. 

Judah Hakkadosh was the president of the Academy 
at Tiberias, and was held in great reputation for his 
sanctity, from which circumstance he received his 
surname, Haklmdosli the Holy. The temple being 
now desolate, and the nation scattered abroad, it was 
feared lest the traditionary law might be lost ; there- 
fore it was resolved to preserve it by committing it to 
writing. Judah the Holy, who lived about the middle 
of the second century, undertook this work, and di- 
gested all the traditions he could collect in six books, 
each consisting of several tracts. The whole number 
is sixty-three. But these tracts are again subdivided 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 97 

into numerous chapters. This is the famous Mishna 
of the Jews. When finished, it was received by the 
nation with the highest respect and confidence; and 
their doctors began, forthwith, to compose commen- 
taries on every part of it, These comments are called 
the Cfemara, or the Completion; and the Mishna 
and G-emara, together, form the Talmud. But as this 
work of commenting on the text of the Mishna was 
pursued, not only in Judea, but in Babylonia, where a 
large number of Jews resided, hence it came to pass, 
that two Talmuds were formed ; the one called the 
Jerusalem Talmud, the other, the Babylonish Tal- 
mud. In both these, the Mishna, committed to writing 
by Judah, is the text ; but the commentaries are widely 
difi*erent. The former was completed before the close 
of the third century of the Christian era; the latter 
was not completed until towards the close of the fifth 
century. The Babylonish Talmud is much the larger 
of the two ; for while that of Jerusalem has been 
printed in one folio volume, this fills twelve folios. 
This last is also held in much higher esteem by the 
Jews than the other ; and, indeed, it comprehends all 
the learning and religion of that people, since they 
have been cast ofi" for their unbelief and rejection of 
the true Messiah. 

Maimonides has given an excellent digest of all 
the laws and institutions enjoined in this great work. 

The Jews place fully as much faith in the Talmud 
as they do in the Bible., Indeed, it is held in much 
greater esteem, and the reading of it is much more 
encouraged. It is a saying of one of their most 
esteemed Rabbles, '' That the oral law is the founda- 
tion of the written; nor can the written law be ex- 
9 



98 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS 

pounded, but by the oral." Agreeably to this, in tbeir 
confession, called the Golden Altar, it is said, " It is 
impossible for us to stand upon the foundation of our 
holy law, which is the written law, unless it be by the 
oral law, which is the exposition thereof." In the 
Talmud it is written, " That to give attention to the 
study of the Bible is some virtue ; but he who pays 
attention to the study of the Mishna, possesses a 
virtue which shall receive a reward ; and he who occu- 
pies himself in reading the Gemara, has a virtue, than 
which there is none more excellent." Nay, they go 
to the impious length of saying, " That he who is 
employed in the study of the Bible and nothing else, 
does but waste his time." They maintain, that if the 
declarations of this oral law be ever so inconsistent 
with reason and common sense, they must be received 
with implicit faith — "You must not depart from them," 
says Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, " if they should assert that 
your right hand is your left, or your left your right." 
And in the Talmud it is taught, " That, to sin against 
the words of the scribes, is far more grievous than to 
sin against the words of the Law." "My son, attend 
rather to the words of the scribes, than to the words 
of the Law." "The text of the Bible is like water, 
but the Mishna is like wine;" with many other similar 
comparisons. 

Without the oral law, they assert, that the written 
law remains in perfect darkness ; for, say they, " There 
are many things in Scripture, which are contradictory, 
and which can in no way be reconciled, but by the 
oral law, which Moses received on Mount Sinai." In 
conformity with these sentiments, is the conduct of the 
Jews until this day. Their learned men spend almost 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 99 

all their time in poring over the Talmud ; and he, 
among them, who knows most of the contents of this 
monstrous farrago of lies and nonsense, is esteemed the 
most learned man. In consequence of their implicit 
faith in this oral law, it becomes almost useless to 
reason with the Jews out of the Scriptures of the Old 
Testament. It is a matter of real importance, there- 
fore, to show that this whole fabric rests on a sandy 
foundation ; and to demonstrate that there is no evi- 
dence whatever that any such law was ever given to 
Moses on Sinai. To this subject, therefore, I would 
now solicit the attention of the reader. 

Here, then, let it be observed, that we have no con- 
troversy with the Jews concerning the written law, 
Moral, Ceremonial, or Political ; nor do we deny that 
Moses received from God, on Mount Sinai, some 
explication of the written law. But what we main- 
tain is, that this exposition did not form a second dis- 
tinct law ; that it was not the same as the oral law of 
the Jews, contained in the Talmud; that it was not 
received by Moses in a distinct form from the written 
law, and attended with a prohibition to commit it to 
writing. 

In support of these positions, we solicit the attention 
of the impartial reader to the following arguments : 

1. There is not the slightest mention of any such 
law in all the sacred records ; neither of its original 
communication to Moses, nor of its transmission to 
posterity, in the way pretended by the Jews. Now, 
we ask, is it probable, that if such a law had been 
given, there should never have been any hint of the 
matter, nor the least reference to it, in the whole 
Bible? Certainly, this total silence of Scripture is 



100 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS 

very little favourable to the doctrine of an oral law. 
Maimonides does indeed pretend to find a reference 
to it in Exodus xxiv. 12. " I will give you, saith the 
Lord, a law and commandment :" by the first of these 
he understands the written law, and by the last the 
oral. But if he had only attended to the words next 
ensuing, he would never have adduced this text in con- 
firmation of an oral law ; " which I have written that 
thou mayst teach them." And we know that it is 
very common to express the written law by both these 
terms, as well as by several others of the same import. 
Now, if no record exists of such a law having been 
given to Moses, how can we, at this late period, be 
satisfied of the fact ? If it was never heard of for 
more than two thousand years afterwards, what evi- 
dence is there that it ever existed ? 

2. Again, we know that in the time of king Josiah, 
the written law, which had been lost, was found again. 
How great was the consternation of the pious king 
and his court, on this occasion ! How memorable the 
history of this fact ! But what became of the oral 
law during this period ? Is it reasonable to think, that 
this would remain uninjured through successive ages 
of idolatry, when the written law was so entirely for- 
gotten ? If they had lost the knowledge of what was 
in their written law, would they be likely to retain 
that which was oral ? If the written law was lost, 
would the traditionary law be preserved ? And if this 
was at any time lost, how could it be recovered ? Not 
from the written law, for this does not contain it ; not 
from the memory of man, for the supposition is, that 
it was thence obliterated. If, then, this law, by any 
chance, was once lost, it is manifest that it could never 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 101 

be recovered, but by divine revelation. And when we 
survey the history of the Jews, is it conceivable, that 
such a body of law, as that contained in the Talmud, 
immensely larger than the written law, could have 
been preserved entire, through so many generations, 
merely by oral communication? The Jews, indeed, 
amuse us with a fable on this subject. They tell us 
that while the Israelites mourned on account of the 
death of Moses, they forgot three thousand of these 
traditions, which were recovered by the ingenuity of 
Othniel the son of Kenaz. This is ridiculous enough. 
Wliat a heap of traditions must that have been, from 
which three thousand could be lost at once ! And how 
profound the genius of Othniel, which was able to 
bring to light such a multitude of precepts, after they 
had been completely forgotten ! But the proof of this 
fact is more ludicrous still. It is derived from Joshua 
XV. 16, 17. " And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath- 
Sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my 
daughter to wife. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the 
brother of Caleb, took it : and he gave him Achsah 
his daughter to w^ife." The unlearned reader should 
he informed that Kirjath-Sepher^ means the city of 
the hook. 

But who retained the oral law safely preserved in 
his memory during the long reign of Manasseh, and 
during the reign of Amon, and of Josiah? Where 
was that law, during the seventy years captivity in 
Babylon ? Have we not a word to inform us of the 
fate of this law in all the histories of those times? 
What ! is there not a hint concerning the preservation 
of a deposit so precious as this law is pretended to be ? 
We must say again, that this continued silence of 
9* 



102 ORAL LAW OE THE JEWS 

Scripture, tlirough a period of so many hundred years, 
speaks little in favour of the unwritten law. 

3. The Jews again inform us, that this law was 
prohibited to be written ; but whence do they derive 
the proof of the assertion ? Let the evidence, if there 
be any, be produced. Must we have recourse to the 
oral law itself, for testimony? Be it so. But why 
then is it now written, and has been, for more than 
fifteen hundred years? In the Talmud, it is said, 
" The words of the written law, it is not lawful for you 
to commit to oral tradition ; nor the words of the oral 
law to writing." And Sol. Jarchi says, "Neither is 
it lawful to write the oral law." Now we say, there 
was a law containing such a prohibition, or there was 
not. If the former, then the Talmudists have trans- 
gressed a positive precept of this law, in committing 
it to writing ; if the latter, then their Talmud and 
their rabbles speak falsely. Let them choose in this 
dilemma. 

4. But it can be proved, that whatever laws Moses 
received from God, the same he was commanded to 
write. It is said, "And Moses came and told the 
people all the words of the Lord. And Moses wrote 
all the words of the Lord." Exod. xxiv. 3, 4. 

And again, it is said, "And the Lord said to Moses, 
Write these words, for according to these words have I 
made a covenant with you and with Israel." Exod. 
xxxiv. 27, 28. And it is worthy of particular obser- 
vation, that whenever the people are called upon to 
obey the law of the Lord, no mention is made of any 
other than the written law. Thus Moses, when his 
end approached, made a speech unto the people ; after 
which, it is added, " And Moses wrote this law, and 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 103 

delivered it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which 
bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all 
the elders of Israel. And Moses commanded them 
saying. At the end of every seven years, in the 
solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of taber- 
nacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the 
Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose, 
thou shalt read it before all Israel in their hearing." 
Deut. xxxi. 9, 24. 

Here, observe, there is no mention of any other but 
the -written law. There is no direction to repeat the 
oral law, at this time of leisure; but surely it was 
more necessary to command the people to do this, if 
there had been such a law, than to hear the written 
law^ which they might read from time to time. 

In the time of Ahaz, the sacred historian informs 
us, "That the Lord testified against Israel, and 
against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the 
seers, saying. Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep 
my commandments and statutes, according to all the 
law which I commanded your fathers, and which I 
sent unto you by my servants the prophets." 2 Kings 
xvii. 13, 3T. 

Now, it is very manifest that the law which they 
are reproved for breaking, was the written law ; for in 
the same chapter we have the following exhortation : 
" And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, 
and the commandments which he wrote for you, ye 
shall observe to do for evermore." 

The prophets continually refer the people " to the 
law and to the testimony," and declare, "if they 
speak not according to this word, it is because there 
is no light in them." 



104 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS 

When Jehoshapliat set about reforming and instruct- 
ing the people, and set on foot an important mission, 
consisting of princes and Levites, to teach them, they 
confined themselves to what was written in the Scrip- 
tures, " And they taught in Judah, and had the book 
of the law of the Lord with them, and went about 
through all the cities of Judah, and taught the peo- 
ple." 2 Ghron. xvii. 9. 

So also Ezra, when he instructed the people who 
had returned from Babylon, made use of no other than 
the written law ; " And Ezra the priest brought the 
law before the congregation, both of men and women, 
and all that could hear with understanding. And he 
read therein before the street, that was before the 
water-gate, from the morning until mid-day, before 
the men and the women, and those that could under- 
stand : and the ears of all the people were attentive 
unto the book of the law. And Ezra stood upon a 
pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose ; 
and Ezra opened the book in sight of all the people, 
and when he opened it, all the people stood up. And 
the priests and the Levites caused the people to un- 
derstand the law ; and they read in the book, in the 
law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused 
the people to understand the reading." Neh. viii. 
2—5, 7, 8. 

5. Besides, the written law is pronounced to be per- 
fect, so that nothing need, or could be added to it; 
therefore the oral law was superfluous. " The law of 
the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psa. xix. 8. 
" Ye shall not add unto the word which I command 
you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 105 

may keep the commandments of the Lord your God, 
which I command you." Deut. iv. 1, 2. 

It is not a valid objection which they bring against 
this argument, that Christians add the gospel to the 
law ; for this is not, properly speaking, a new law. 
The gospel is a promise of grace and salvation. The 
precepts of the law are, indeed, specially employed in 
the gospel, to a purpose for which they were not origi- 
nally intended ; but the gospel, in whatever light it 
may be viewed, is committed to writing, and no part 
of it left to depend on oral tradition. 

6. In the numerous exhortations and injunctions of 
Almighty God, recorded in the Old Testament, there 
is not an instance of any one being commanded to do 
anything not contained in the written law, which 
proves, that either there was no other law in existence, 
or that obedience to it was not required ; and if obe- 
dience was not required, then, certainly, there was no 
law.* 

Moreover, many of the Jews themselves concur with 
us in rejecting the oral law. The chief advocates of 
traditions were the Pharisees, who arose out of the 
schools of Hillel and Shammai, who lived after the 
times of the Maccabees. On this subject, we have the 
testimony of Jerome, who says, '' Shammai and Hillel, 
from whom arose the Scribes and Pharisees, not long 
before the birth of Christ ; the first of whom was 
called the Dissipator, and the last. Profane ; because, 

* It would be tedious to refer to all the texts in which com- 
mands and exhortations are given, but the reader may consult 
the following: — Deut. x. 12, 13; xi. 32; xxviii. 1; xxx. 20. xi ; 
xxix. 9, 20 ; xxxii. 45, 46. Josh. i. 7 ; xxiii. 6. 2 Kings xiv. 6. 
2 Chron. xxv. 4 ; xxx. 16. 



106 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS 

by their traditions, they destroyed the law of God." 
Isai. viii. But on this point, the Sadducees were 
opposed to the Pharisees, and, according to Josephus, 
rejected all traditions, adhering to the Scriptures 
alone. With them agreed the Samaritans, and Es- 
senes. The Karaites, also, received the written word, 
and rejected all traditions ; although in other respects, 
they did not agree with the Sadducees. And in con- 
sequence of this, they are hated and reviled by the 
other Jews, so that it is not without great diflBculty 
that they will receive a Karaite into one of their 
synagogues. Of this sect, there are still some re- 
maining in Poland, Russia, Turkey, and Africa. 

It now remains to mention the arguments by which 
the Jews attempt to establish their oral law. These 
shall be taken from Manasseh ben Iseael,* one of 
their most learned and liberal men. He argues from 
the necessity of an oral law, to explain many parts of 
the written law. To confirm this opinion, he adduces 
several examples, as Exodus xii. 2. " This month 
shall be unto you the beginning of months, it shall be 
the first month of the year." On this text he remarks, 
" That the name of the month is not mentioned. It 
is not said, whether the months were lunar or solar, 
both of which were in ancient use ; and yet without 
knowing this, the precept could not be observed. The 
same difiiculty occurs in regard to the other annual 
feasts." 

"Another example is taken from Lev. xi. 13, where 
it is commanded, that unclean birds shall not be eaten, 
and yet we are not furnished with any criteria, by 

* Concil. in Exod. 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION 107 

which to distinguish the clean from the unclean, as in 
the case of beasts. A third example is from Exod. 
xvi. 29, '• Let no man go out of his place on the 
seventh daj,' and jet we are not informed, whether 
he was forbidden to leave his house, his court, his city, 
or his suburbs. So, in Lev. xxi. 12, the priest is for- 
bidden Ho go out of the Sanctuary,' and no 'time is 
limited ; but we know that the residence of the priests 
was without the precincts of the temple, and that they 
served there in rotation." 

"Again, in Exod. xx. 10, all work is prohibited on 
the Sabbath, but circumcision is commanded to be per- 
formed on the eighth day ; and it is nowhere declared, 
whether this rite should be deferred, when the eighth 
day occurred on the Sabbath. The same difficulty 
exists in regard to the slaying of the paschal lamb, 
which was confined by the law to the fourteenth day 
of the month, and we are nowhere informed what was 
to be done when this was the Sabbath." "Li Deut. 
xxiv. we have many laws relating to marriage, but we 
are nowhere informed what was constituted a legal 
marriage." "In the Feast of the Tabernacles, beau- 
tiful branches of trees are directed to be used, but the 
species of tree is not mentioned. And in the Feast 
of Weeks, it is commanded, ' That on the fiftieth day, 
the wave-sheaf should be ofi'ered from their habita- 
tions ;' but where it should be ofi'ered is not said. 
And, finally, among prohibited marriages, the wife of 
an uncle is never mentioned." 

In these, and many other instances, the learned Jew 
observes, that the law could only be understood by 
such oral tradition as he supposes accompanied the 
written law. 



108 ORAL LAW OP THE JEWS 

Now, in answer to these things, we observe first, in 
the general, that however many difficulties may be 
started respecting the precise meaning of many parts 
of the law, these can never prove the existence of an 
oral law. The decision on these points might have 
been left to the discretion of the worshippers, or to the 
common sense of the people. Besides, many things 
may appear obscure to us, which were not so to the 
ancient Israelites ; so that they might have needed no 
oral law to explain them. 

Again, it is one thing to expound a law, and another 
to add something to it ; but the oral law for which 
they plead, is not a mere exposition, but an addi- 
tional law. 

It is one thing to avail ourselves of traditions to 
interpret the law, and another to receive them as 
divine and absolutely necessary. We do not deny 
that many things may be performed according to 
ancient custom, or the traditions of preceding ages, in 
things indifferent; but we do deny that these can be 
considered as divine or necessary. 

But particularly, we answer, that the alleged diffi- 
culty about the name of the month has no existence, 
for it can be very well ascertained from the circum- 
stances of the case ; and in Exod. xiii. the month is 
named. The civil year of the Jews began with the 
month Tisri, but the ecclesiastical with Abib. There 
is, in fact, no greater difficulty here, than in any other 
case, where the circumstance of time is mentioned. 
There was no need of understanding the method of 
reducing solar and lunar years into one another, to 
decide this matter. And if the Talmud be examined 
on this point, where the oral law is supposed to be now 



WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 109 

contained, there will be found there no satisfactory 
method of computing time. And, indeed, the Talmudic 
doctors are so far from being agreed on this subject, 
that anything else may be found sooner than a law 
regulating this matter in the Talmud. 

And in regard to the unclean birds, why was it 
necessary to have criteria to distinguish them, since a 
catalogue of them is given in the very passage to 
which reference is made ? And I would ask, does the 
pretended oral law contain any such criteria, to direct 
in this case ? Nothing less. The difficulty about the 
people leaving their place on the Sabbath, and the 
priests leaving the temple, is really too trifling to 
require any serious consideration. And as to what 
should be done when the day of circumcising a child, 
or of killing the passover, happened on the Sabbath, 
it is a point easily decided. These positive institutions 
ought to have been observed, on whatever day they 
occurred. 

The question respecting matrimony should rather 
provoke a smile, than a serious answer ; for who is 
ignorant what constitutes a lawful marriage ? Or who 
would suppose that the ceremonies attendant on this 
transaction ought to be prescribed by the law of God ; 
or, that another law was requisite for the purpose? 
As well might our learned Jew insist on the necessity 
of an oral law, to teach us how we should eat, drink, 
and perform our daily work. 

If the law prescribed beautiful branches of trees to 
be used in the Feast of Tabernacles, what need was 
there of an oral law to teach anything more ? If such 
branches were used, it was of course indifferent 
whether they were of this or that species. 
10 



110 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS, &C 



Equally futile are the other arguments of the author, 
and need not be answered in detail. 

It appears, therefore, that there is no evidence that 
God ever gave any law to Moses, distinct from that 
which is written in the Pentateuch. And there is good 
reason to believe, that the various laws found in the 
Mishna, were never received from God, nor derived 
by tradition from Moses ; but were traditions of the 
fathers, such as were in use in the time of our Saviour, 
who severely reprehends the Scribes and Pharisees, for 
setting aside, and rendering of no effect, the word of 
God, by their unauthorized traditions. 

The internal evidence is itself sulfficient to convince 
us that the laws of the Talmud are human inventions, 
and not divine institutions ; except that those circum- 
stances of divine worship which were left to the dis- 
cretion of the people, and which were regulated by 
custom, may be often found preserved in this immense 
work. 



PART II. 



THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



(Ill 



CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 113 



SECTION I, 



METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTA- 
MENT. 

After what has been said, in the former part of this 
work, respecting the importance of settling the Canon 
on correct principles, it will be unnecessary to add any- 
thing here on that subject, except to say, that this in- 
quiry cannot be less interesting in regard to the Old 
Testament than to the New. It is a subject which 
calls for our utmost diligence and impartiality. It is 
one which we cannot neglect with a good conscience ; 
for the inquiry is nothing less than to ascertain what 
revelation God has made to us, and where it is to be 
found. 

As to the proper method of settling the Canon of 
the New Testament, the same course must be pursued 
as has been done in respect to the Old. We must 
have recourse to authentic history, and endeavour to 
ascertain what books were received as genuine by the 
primitive church and early Fathers. The contem- 
poraries, and immediate successors of the apostles, are 
the most competent witnesses in this case. If, among 
these, there is found to have been a general agree- 
ment, as to what books were canonical, it will go far 
to satisfy us respecting the true Canon ; for it cannot 
be supposed, that they could easily be deceived in a 
10* 



114 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON 

matter of this sort. A general consent of the early 
Fathers, and of the primitive church, therefore, fur- 
nishes conclusive evidence on this point, and is that 
species of evidence which is least liable to fallacy or 
abuse. The learned Huet, has, therefore,, assumed it 
as a maxim, '^ That every book is genuine, which 
WAS esteemed genuine by those who lived nearest 

TO the time when it was WRITTEN, AND BY THE 

AGES FOLLOWING, IN A CONTINUED SERIES." * The rea- 
sonableness of this rule will appear more evident, when 
we consider the great esteem with which these books 
were at first received ; the constant public reading of 
them in the churches, and the early version of them 
into other languages. 

The high claims of the Eomish church, in regard to 
the authority of fixing the Canon, have already been 
disproved, as it relates to the books of the Old Testa- 
ment ; and the same arguments apply with their full 
force to the Canon of the New Testament, and need 
not be repeated. It may not be amiss, however, to 
hear from distinguished writers of that communion, 
what their real opinion is on this subject. Heuman 
asserts, *' That the sacred Scriptures, without the 
authority of the church, have no more authority than 
^sop's Eables." And Baillie, " That he would 
give no more credit to Matthew than to Livy, unless 
the church obliged him." To the same purpose speak 
PiGHius, EcKius, Bellarmine, and many others of 
their most distinguished writers. By the authority 
of the church, they understand a power lodged in the 
church of Borne, to determine what books shall be 

* Demonstratio Evang. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 115 

received as the word of God ; than which it is scarcely 
possible to conceive of anything more absurd. 

In avoiding this extreme, some Protestants have 
verged towards the opposite, and have asserted, that 
the only, or principal evidence of the canonical au- 
thority of the sacred Scriptures is, their internal evi- 
dence. Even some churches went so far as to insert 
this opinion in their public confessions.* 

Now it ought not to be doubted, that the internal 
evidence of the Scriptures is exceedingly strong; and 
that when the mind of the reader is truly illuminated, 
it derives from this source the most unwavering con- 
viction of their truth and divine authority; but that 
every sincere Christian should be able, in all cases, by 
this internal light, to distinguish between canonical 
books and such as are not, is surely no very safe or 
reasonable opinion. Suppose that a thousand books 
of various kinds, including the canonical, were placed 
before any sincere Christian, would he be able, without 
mistake, to select from this mass the twenty-seven 
books of which the New Testament is composed, if he 
had nothing to guide him but the internal evidence ? 
Would every such person be able at once to determine, 
whether the book of Ucclesiastes, or of JEcclesiastwus, 
belonged to the Canon of the Old Testament, by inter- 
nal evidence alone ? It is certain, that the influence 
of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a true faith 
in the word of God ; but to make this the only crite- 
rion by which to judge of the canonical authority of a 
book is certainly liable to strong objections. The 
tendency of this doctrine is to enthusiasm, and the 
consequence of acting upon it, would be to unsettle, 
* See the Confession of the Reformed Gallican Church. 



116 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON 

rather than establish, the Canon of Holj Scripture ; 
for it would be strange, if some persons, without any 
other guidance than their own spiritual taste, would 
not pretend that other books besides those long re- 
ceived were canonical, or would not be disposed to reject 
some part of these. If this evidence were as infallible 
as some would have it to be, then the authenticity of 
every disputed text, as well as the canonical authority 
of every book, might be ascertained by it. But, it is 
a fact, that some eminently pious men doubted for a 
while respecting the canonical authority of some genu- 
ine books of th^ New Testament. 

And if the internal evidence were the only criterion 
of canonical authority to which we could resort, there 
would remain no possibility of convincing any person 
of the inspiration of a book, unless he could perceive 
in it the internal evidence of a divine origin. In 
many cases this species of evidence can scarcely be 
said to exist, as when for wise purposes God directs or 
inspires a prophet to record genealogical tables ; or 
even in the narration of common events, I do not see 
how it can be determined from internal evidence, that 
the history is written by inspiration ; for the only cir- 
cumstance in which an inspired narrative differs from 
a faithful human history, is that the one is infallible, 
and the other is not ; but the existence of this infalli- 
bility, or the absence of it, is not apparent from read- 
ing the books. Both accounts may appear consistent, 
and it is only, or chiefly, by external evidence that we 
can know that one of them is inspired. Who could 
undertake to say, that from internal evidence alone, 
he could determine that the book of Esther, or the 
Chronicles, were written by inspiration ? Besides, 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117 

some books are obscure and not easily understood; 
now, how could any one discern the internal evidence 
of a book, the meaning of which he did not yet un- 
derstand ? 

The evidence arising from a general view of the 
Scriptures, collectively, is most convincing, but is not 
so well adapted to determine whether some one book, 
considered separately, was certainly written by divine 
inspiration. 

It is necessary, therefore, to proceed to our destined 
point in a more circuitous way. We must be at the 
pains to examine into the history of the Canon, and, 
as was before said, to ascertain what books were 
esteemed canonical by all those who had the best op- 
portunity of judging of this matter; and when the 
internal evidence is found corroborating the external, 
the two, combined, may produce a degree of conviction 
which leaves no room to desire any stronger evidence. 

The question to be decided is a matter of fact. It 
is an inquiry respecting the real authors of the books 
of the New Testament, whether they were written by 
the persons whose names they bear, or by others under 
their names. The inspiration of these books, though 
closely allied to this subject, is not now the object of 
inquiry. The proper method of determining a matter 
of fact, evidently is to have recourse to those persons 
Vfho were witnesses of it, or who received their infor- 
mation from others who were witnesses. It is only in 
this way that we know that Homer, Horace, Virgil, 
Livy, and Tully, wrote the books which now go under 
their names. 

The early Christians pursued this method of deter- 
mining what books were canonical. They searched 



118 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON 

into the records of the churcli, before their time, and 
from these ascertained what books should be received, 
as belonging to the sacred volume. They appeal to 
that certain and universal tradition, which attested the 
genuineness of these books. Iren^us, Tertullian, 
EusEBius, Cyril, and Augustine, have all made use 
of this argument, in establishing the Canon of the New 
Testament. 

The question is often asked. When was the Canon of 
the New Testament constituted, and by what authority ? 
Many persons who write and speak on this subject, 
appear to entertain a wrong impression in regard to 
it ; as if the books of the New Testament could not be 
of authority, until they were sanctioned by some Eccle- 
siastical Council, or by some publicly expressed opinion 
of the Fathers of the church ; and as if any portion of 
their authority depended on their being collected into 
one volume. But the truth is, that every one of these 
books was of authority, as far as known, from the 
moment of its publication ; and its right to a place in 
the Canon, is not derived from the sanction of any 
church or council, but from the fact, that it was written 
by inspiration. And the appeal to testimony is not to 
prove that any council of bishops, or others, gave sanc- 
tion to the book, but to show that it is indeed the 
genuine work of Matthew, or John, or Peter, or Paul, 
who we know were inspired. 

The books of the New Testament were, therefore, 
of full authority, before they were collected into one 
volume ; and it would have made no difference if they 
had never been included in one volume, but had re- 
tained that separate form in which they were first pub- 
lished. And it is by no means certain, that these 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119 

books were, at a very early period, bound in one 
volume. As far as we have any testimony on the 
subject, the probability is, that it was more customary 
to include them in two volumes: one of which was 
called the Crospel, and the other, the Apostles. 
Some of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament 
extant, appear to have been put up in this form ; and 
the Fathers often refer to the Scriptures of the New 
Testament, under these two titles. The question, 
When was the Canon constituted ? admits therefore of 
no other proper answer than this, — that as soon as the 
last book of the New Testament was written and pub- 
lished, the Canon was completed. But if the question 
relates to the time when these books were collected 
together, and published in a single volume, or in two 
volumes, it admits of no definite answer ; for those 
churches which were situated nearest to the place 
where any particular books were published, would, of 
course, obtain copies much earlier than churches in a 
remote part of the world. For a considerable period, 
the collection of these books, in each church, must 
have been necessarily incomplete ; for it would take 
some time to send to the church, or people, with whom 
the autographs were deposited, and to have fair copies 
transcribed. This necessary process will also account 
for the fact, that some of the smaller books were not 
received by the churches so early, nor so universally, 
as the larger. The solicitude of the churches to pos- 
sess immediately the more extensive and important 
books of the New Testament, would, doubtless, induce 
them to make a great exertion to acquire copies; but, 
probably, the smaller would not be so much spoken of, 
nor would there be so strong a desire to obtain them, 



120 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON 

■without delay. Considering how difficult it is now, 
with all our improvements in the typographical art, to 
multiply copies of the Scriptures with sufficient rapi- 
dity, it is truly wonderful, how so many churches as 
were founded during the first century, to say nothing 
of individuals, could all be supplied with copies of the 
New Testament, when there was no speedier method 
of producing them than by writing every letter with 
the pen! "The pen of a ready writer" must then, 
indeed, have been of immense value. 

The idea entertained by some, especially by DoD- 
WELL, that these books lay for a long time locked up 
in the coffers of the churches to which they were ad- 
dressed, and totally unknown to the world, is in itself 
most improbable, and is repugnant to all the testimony 
which exists on the subject. Even as early as the 
time when Peter wrote his second Epistle, the writings 
of Paul were in the hands of the churches, and were 
classed with the other Scriptures.* And the citations 
from these books by the earliest Christian writers, 
living in different countries, demonstrate, that from 
the time of their publication, they were sought after 
with avidity, and were widely dispersed. How intense 
the interest which the first Christians felt in the 
writings of the apostles can scarcely be conceived by 
us, who have been familiar with these books from our 
earliest years. How solicitous would they be, for ex- 
ample, who had never seen Paul, but had heard of his 
wonderful conversion, and extraordinary labours and 
gifts, to read his writings ! And probably they who 
had enjoyed the high privilege of hearing this apostle 
preach, would not be less desirous of reading his 
* 2 Pet. iii. 14, 15. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 121 

Epistles. As we know, from the nature of the case, 
as well as from testimony, that many uncertain ac- 
counts of Christ's discourses and miracles had obtained 
circulation, how greatly would the primitive Christians 
rejoice to obtain an authentic history from the pen of 
an apostle, or from one who wrote precisely what was 
dictated by an apostle ! We need no longer wonder, 
therefore, that every church should wish to possess a 
collection of the writings of the apostles ; and knowing 
them to be the productions of inspired men, they would 
want no further sanction of their authority. All that 
was requisite was, to be certain that the book was 
indeed written by the apostle whose name it bore. 
And this leads me to observe, that some things in 
Paul's Epistles, which seem to common readers to be 
of no importance, were of the utmost consequence. 
Such as, "I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle," &c. — 
"The salutation, with mine own hand." — " So I write 
in every epistle." — ''You see how large a letter I have 
written unto you with mine own hand." — "The saluta- 
tion by the hand of me, Paul." — "The salutation of 
Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in 
every Epistle."* This apostle commonly employed 
an amanuensis; but that the churches to which he 
wrote might have the assm-ance of the genuineness of 
his Epistles, from seeing his own hand- writing, he con- 
stantly wrote the salutation himself; so much care 
was taken to have these sacred writings well authenti- 
cated, on their first publication. And on the same 
account it was, that he and the other apostles were so 
particular in giving the names, and the characters, of 
those who were the bearers of their Epistles. And it 
* Rom. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 17. 
11 



122 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON 

seems, that they were always committed to tlie care 
of men of high estimation in the church; and com- 
monly, more than one appears to have been intrusted 
with this important commission. 

If it be inquired, what became of the autographs of 
these sacred books, and why they were not preserved ; 
since this would have prevented all uncertainty re- 
specting the true reading, and would have relieved the 
Biblical critic from a large share of labour ; it is 
sufficient to answer, that nothing different has oc- 
curred, in relation to these autographs, from that 
which has happened to all other ancient writings. No 
man can produce the autograph of any book as old as 
the New Testament, unless it has been preserved in 
some extraordinary way, as in the case of the manu- 
scripts of Herculaneum ; neither could it be supposed, 
that in the midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and 
persecutions, as the Christian church endured, this 
object could have been secured by anything short of 
a miracle. And God knew, that by a superintending 
providence over the sacred Scriptures, they could be 
transmitted with sufficient accuracy, by means of 
apographs, to the most distant generations. Indeed, 
there is reason to believe, that the Christians of early 
times were so absorbed and impressed with the glory 
of the truths revealed, that they gave themselves little 
concern about the mere vehicle by which they were 
communicated. They had matters of such deep in- 
terest, and so novel, before their eyes, that they had 
neither time, nor inclination, for the minutiae of criti- 
cism. It may be, therefore, that they did not set so 
high a value on the possession of the autograph of an 
inspired book as we should, but considered a copy, 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 123 

made with scrupulous fidelity, as equally valuable with 
the original. And God may have suffered these auto- 
graphs of the sacred writings to perish, lest in process 
of time, they should have become idolized, like the 
brazen serpent ; or lest men should be led supersti- 
tiously to venerate the mere parchment and ink, and 
form and letters, employed by an apostle. Certainly, 
the history of the church renders such an idea far 
from being improbable. 

But, although little is said about the originals of the 
apostles' writings, we have a testimony in Tertullian, 
that the Authentic Letters of the apostles might 
be seen by any that would take the pains to go to the 
churches to which they were addressed. Some, in- 
deed, think that Tertullian does not mean to refer to 
the autographs, but to authentic copies ; but why then 
send the inquirer to the churches to which the Epistles 
were addressed ? Had not other churches, all over the 
world, authentic copies of these Epistles also ? There 
seems to be good reason, therefore, for believing, that 
the autographs, or original letters of the apostles, were 
preserved by the churches to which they were ad- 
dressed, in the time of Tertullian.* 

But although the autographs of the books of the 
New Testament are not extant, we have beautiful 
copies of the whole penned as early as the fourth or 
fifth century, and some think that our oldest manu- 
scripts of the New Testament have a still earlier 
origin ; and we have versions which were made at a 
period still earlier, so that we have lost nothing by the 
disappearance of the autographs of the New Tes- 
tament. 

* See Note C. 



124 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS 



SECTION II. 



CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT — 
CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE CITED AS AUTHORITY BY THE 
FATHERS, AND READ IN THE CHURCHES AS SCRIPTURE. 

Having declared our purpose, to place the settling of 
the Canon of the New Testament on the footing of 
authentic testimony, we will now proceed to adduce 
our authorities, and shall begin with an examination 
of the ancient catalogues of the New Testament. 

The slightest attention to the works of the Fathers 
will convince any one that the writings of the apostles 
were held, from the beginning, in the highest estima- 
tion ; that great pains were taken to distinguish the 
genuine productions of these inspired men from all 
other books ; that they were sought out with uncom- 
mon diligence, and read with profound attention and 
veneration, not only in private, but publicly in the 
churches ; and that they are cited and referred to, 
universally, as decisive on every point of doctrine, and 
as authoritative standards for the regulation of faith 
and practice. 

This being the state of the case, when the books of 
the New Testament were communicated to the churches, 
we are enabled, in regard to most of them, to produce 
testimony of the most satisfactory kind, that they 
were admitted into the Canon, and received as inspired, 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 125 

by the universal consent of Christians in every part 
of the world. And as to those few books, concerning 
which some persons entertained doubts, it can be 
shown, that as soon as their claims were fully and im- 
partially investigated, they also were received with 
universal consent ; and that other books, however 
excellent as human compositions, were never put upon 
a level with the canonical books of the New Testa- 
ment ; that spurious writings, under the names of the 
apostles, were promptly and decisively rejected, and 
that the churches were repeatedly warned against such 
apocryphal books. 

To do justice to this subject, will require some de- 
tail, which may appear dry to the reader, but should 
be interesting to every person who wishes to know as- 
suredly, that what he receives as sacred Scripture, is 
no imposture, but the genuine, authentic productions 
of those inspired men, whom Christ appointed to be 
his witnesses to the world, and to whom was com- 
mitted the sacred deposit of divine truth, intended for 
the instruction and government of the church in all 
future ages. 

In exhibiting the evidence of the canonical autho- 
rity of these books, we shall first attend to some gene- 
ral considerations, which relate to the whole volume, 
and then adduce testimony in favour of each book now 
included in the Canon. And here, as in the case of 
the Old Testament, we find that at a very early period, 
catalogues of these books were published, by most of 
the distinguished Fathers whose writings have come 
down to us ; and that the same has been done, also, by 
several councils, whose decrees are still extant. 

These catalogues are, for the most part, perfectly 
11* 



126 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS 

harmonious. In a few of them, some books now in 
the Canon are omitted, for which omission a satisfac- 
tory reason can commonly be assigned. In the first 
circulation of the sacred Scriptures, there was great 
need of such lists ; as the distant churches and com- 
mon Christians were liable to be imposed on by spuri- 
ous writings, which seem to have abounded in those 
times. It was, therefore, a most important part of 
the instruction given to Christians, by their spiritual 
guides, to inform them accurately, what books belonged 
to the Canon. Great pains were taken, also, to know 
the truth on this subject. Pious bishops, for this single 
purpose, travelled into Judea, and remained there for 
some time, that they might learn, accurately, every cir- 
cumstance relative to the authenticity of these writings. 
1. The first regular catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament, which we find on record, is by Origen, 
whose extensive Biblical knowledge highly qualified 
him to judge correctly in this case. He had not only 
read much, but travelled extensively, and resided a 
great part of his life on the confines of Judea, in a 
situation favourable to accurate information from every 
part of the church, where any of these books were 
originally published. Origen lived and flourished 
about one hundred years after the death of the apostle 
John. He was, therefore, near enough to the time of 
the publication of these books, to obtain the most cer- 
tain information of their authors. Most of the origi- 
nal writings of this great and learned man have 
perished, but his catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament has been preserved by Eusebius, in his 
Ecclesiastical History.* It was contained in Origen's 
* Lib. vi. c. 25. 



OE THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127 

Homilies on the gospel of Matthew ; and was repeated 
in his Homilies on the gospel of John. 

In this catalogue he mentions the four Grospels, the 
Acts of the Apostles, fourteen epistles of Paul, two 
of Peter, three of John, and the Booh of Pevelation. 
This enumeration includes all the present Canon, ex- 
cept the Epistles of James and Jude, but these were 
omitted by accident, not design ; for in other parts of 
his writings, he acknowledges these Epistles as a part 
of the Canon. And while Origen furnishes us with 
so full a catalogue of the books now in the Canon, he 
inserts no others, which proves, that in his time the 
Canon was well settled among the learned ; and that 
the distinction between inspired writings and human 
compositions was as clearly marked, as at any subse- 
quent period. 

In the work entitled. Apostolical Constitutions, 
ascribed to Clement of Rome, there is a catalogue 
of the books of the New Testament ; but as this work 
is not genuine, and of an uncertain author and age, I 
will not make use of it. 

There has been preserved a fragment of a very 
ancient writing on the Canon, ascribed to Caius the 
presbyter, which may be seen in Routh's Reliquise, 
an abridgment of which is here given in a literal ver- 
sion from the Latin. What is said by the author con- 
cerning the first two evangelists is lost. The fragment 
commences by saying, " The third is the gospel ac- 
cording to Luke. Luke was that physician who, after 

the ascension, consorted with Paul Although 

he had never seen Christ in the flesh, yet having 
acquired a knowledge of his life, he commences his 
narrative from the nativity of John. 



128 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS 

" The fourth gospel was written by John, one of the 
disciples. To his fellow disciples, and to the bishops, 
who exhorted him [to write,] he said, ' Fast with me 
three days, from this day, and whatever shall be re- 
vealed to any of us, we will declare to one another/ 
The same night it was revealed to Andrew, that John, 
under his own name should describe all things, so that 
they might be recognized by all. And so, though 
various elements are taught in the several gospels, 
yet the faith of believers is not diverse, since with one 
pervading spirit all things are declared by all concern- 
ing the nativity, the passover, the resurrection, and 
concerning his conversation with his disciples, and his 
double advent ; the first, when he was seen in a state 

of humiliation in the second, with glorious 

regal power, which is yet future. . . . But the Acts 
of all the Apostles, Luke to Theophilus has compre- 
hended in a single book. The Epistles of Paul de- 
clare to all who wish to know, on what account, and 
from what place they were written. Paul, following 
the example of his predecessor John, wrote Epistles to 
the following seven named churches : — First, to the 
CorintMaiis ; the second to the I^pTiesians ; the third 
to the Philippians ; the fourth to the Colossians ; the 
fifth to the G-alatians ; the sixth to the Thessalonians ; 
and the seventh to the Romans. But to the Corin- 
thians and the Thessalonians, he wrote, for the sake 
of correction, a second time. One church is known, 
difiused through the whole world. 

*'And John, in the Apocalypse, although he addressed 
himself to seven churches, yet speaks to all. More- 
over, there is one [epistle] to Philemon ; one to TituSy 
and two to Timothy, on account of his affection and 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129 

care ; which, however, are in honour of the Catholic 
Church, and sanctified to the ordaining ecclesiastical 
discipline. 

" There is one [epistle of Paul] carried about to the 
Laodiceans, and one to the Alexandrians under the name 
of Paul, forged to support the heresy of Marcion, and 
many others which ought not to be received into the 
Catholic Church. For it is unsuitable that gall should 
be mixed with honey. Indeed, the Epistle of Jude 
and two [smaller epistles] under the name of John are 
in the possession of the church. Also the book of Wis- 
dom, written by the friends of Solomon in honour of him. 
There is an Apocalypse of John, and one of Peter ; 
the church receives only the former, and some are un- 
willing that this should be read in the church." 

From this ancient fragment of the second century, 
we have nearly a complete catalogue of the canoni- 
cal books of the New Testament, and the rejection 
of some spurious books which, even at that early 
age, were put into circulation. This fragment 
is not noticed by Lardner. It was discovered 
by Muratorius, and has been largely commented 
on by several learned authors. Muratorius ascribes 
it to the presbyter Caius; but others to Papias. 
Routh considers it altogether uncertain who is the 
author ; but all agree in referring it to the second 
century. 

The catalogue ascribed to the Council of Nice, is 
not genuine, and is connected with a story which bears 
every mark of superstitious credulity.* This, there- 

* The story is briefly this. The Fathers of the Council of Nice 
put all the books which claimed a place in the sacred Canon un- 



130 CATALOGUES OP THE BOOKS 

fore, shall be likewise omitted. We stand in no need 
of suspicious testimony on this subject. Witnesses of 
the most undoubted veracity, and distinguished intelli- 
gence, can be found in every successive age. 

2. The next catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament to which I will refer, is that of Eusebius, 
the learned historian of the church; to whose dili- 
gence and fidelity, in collecting ecclesiastical facts, we 
are more indebted, than to the labours of all other 
men, for that period which intervened between the 
days of the apostles and his own times. Eusebius 
may be considered as giving his testimony about one 
hundred years after Oeigen. His catalogue may be 
seen in his Ecclesiastical History.'^ In it, he enumer- 
ates every book which we have now in the Canon, and 
no others ; but he mentions that the Epistle of James, 
the second of Peter, and second and third of John, 
were doubted of by some ; and that the Revelation was 
rejected by some, and received by others ; but Eusebius 
himself declares it to be his opinion, that it should be 
received without doubt. 

There is no single witness among the whole number 
of ecclesiastical writers, who was more competent to 
give accurate information on this subject than Euse- 
bius. He had spent a great part of his life in search- 
ing into the antiquities of the Christian church ; and 

der the communion table of the church, and then prayed that 
such of them as were inspired might be found uppermost, and 
the apocryphal below ; whereupon, the event occurred agreeably 
to their wishes ; and thus a clear line of distinction was made be- 
tween canonical books and such as were not canonical. This 
story is related in the Synodicon of Popus, an obscure writer, 
and is undeserving of the smallest credit. 
* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 25. comp. with c. 3. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131 

he had an intimate acquaintance with all the records 
relating to the ecclesiastical affairs, many of which 
are now lost ; and almost the only information which 
we have of them has been transmitted to us by this 
diligent compiler. ( See Appendix Note D. ) 

3. Athanasius, so well known for his writings and 
his sufferings in defence of the divinity of our Saviour, 
in his Pestal Epistle, and in his Synopsis of Scripture, 
has left a catalogue of the books of the New Testa- 
ment, which perfectly agrees with the Canon now in 
use. 

4. Cyril, in his Catechetical work, has also given 
us a catalogue, perfectly agreeing with ours, except 
that he omits the book of Revelation. Why that book 
was so often left out of the ancient catalogues and 
collections of the Scriptures, shall be mentioned here- 
after. Athanasius and Cyril were contemporary with 
Eusebius ; the latter, however, may more properly be 
considered as twenty or thirty years later. 

5. Then, a little after the middle of the fourth cen- 
tury, we have the testimony of all the bishops assem- 
bled in the Council of Laodicea. The catalogue of 
this council is contained in their sixtieth Canon, and 
is exactly the same as ours, except that the book of 
Revelation is omitted. The decrees of this council 
were, in a short time, received into the Canons of the 
universal church; and among the rest, this catalogue 
of the books of the New Testament. Thus, we find, 
that as early as the middle of the fourth century, there 
was a universal consent, in all parts of the world to 
which the Christian church extended, as to the books 
which constituted the Canon of the New Testament, 
with the single exception of the book of Revelation ; 



132 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS 

and that this book was also generally admitted to be 
canonical, we shall take the opportunity of proving in 
the sequel of this work. 

6. But a few years elapsed from the meeting of this 
council, before Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in the 
island of Cyprus, published his work " on Heresies," 
in which he gives a catalogue of the canonical books 
of the New Testament, which, in every respect, is the 
same as the Canon now received. 

7. About the same time, Gregory Nazianzen, 
bishop of Constantinople, in a Poem, " on the True 
and Genuine Scriptures," mentions distinctly all the 
books now received, except Revelation. 

8. A few years later, we have a list of the books of 
the New Testament in a work of Philastrius, bishop 
of Brixia, in Italy, which corresponds in all respects 
with those now received ; except that he mentions no 
more than thirteen of Paul's Epistles. If the omission 
was designed, it probably relates to the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 

9. At the same time lived Jerome, who translated 
the whole Bible into Latin. He furnishes us with a 
catalogue answering to our present Canon, in all re- 
spects. He does, however, speak doubtfully about the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of the uncertainty 
of its author. But, in other parts of his writings, he 
shows, that he received this book as canonical, as well 
as the rest.* 

10. The catalogue of Rufin varies in nothing from 
the Canon now received, f 

11. Augustine, in his work on " Christian Doc- 
trine," has inserted the names of the books of the 

* Epist. ad Paulinum. f Expos, in Symbol. Apost. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 183 

New Testament, which, in all respects, are the same 
as ours. 

12. The Council of Carthage, at which Augustine 
was present, have furnished a catalogue which per- 
fectly agrees with ours. At this council, forty-four 
bishops attended. The list referred to, is found in 
their forty-eighth Canon. 

13. The unknown author, who goes under the name 
of DiONYSius the Areopagite, so describes the books 
of the New Testament, as to show that he received the 
very same as are now in the Canon. 

Another satisfactory source of evidence, in favour of 
the Canon of the New Testament, as now received, is 
the fact, that these books were quoted as sacred Scrip- 
ture by all the Fathers, living in parts of the world 
the most remote from each other. The truth of this 
assertion will fully appear, when we come to speak 
particularly of the books which compose the Canon. 
Now, how can it be accounted for, that these books, 
and these alone, should be cited as authority in Asia, 
Africa and Europe ? No other reason can be assigned, 
than one of these two; either, they knew no other 
books which claimed to be canonical; or, if they did, 
they did not esteem them of equal authority with those 
which they cited. On either of these grounds the 
conclusion is the same, that the books quoted as Scrip- 
ture are alone the canonical books. To apply this 
rule to a particular case — ''the first Epistle of Peter" 
is canonical, because it is continually cited by the most 
ancient Christian writers, in every part of the world ; 
but the book called " The Revelation of Peter," is 
apocryphal, because none of the early Fathers have 
taken any testimonies from it. The same is true of 
12 



134 THE CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE 

"the Acts of Peter," and "the Gospel of Peter." 
These writings were totally unknown to the primitive 
church, and are therefore spurious. This argument is 
perfectly conclusive, and its force was perceived by 
the ancient defenders of the Canon of the New Testa- 
ment. Eusebius repeatedly has recourse to it, and, 
therefore, those persons who have aimed to unsettle 
our present Canon, as Toland and Dodwell, have 
attempted to prove that the early Christian writers 
were in the habit of quoting indifferently, and promis- 
cuously, the books which we now receive, and others 
which are now rejected as apocryphal. But this is not 
correct, as has been shown by Nye, Eichardson, and 
others. The true method of determining this matter, 
is by a careful examination of all the passages in the 
writings of the Fathers, where other books besides 
those now in the Canon have been quoted. Some 
progress was made in collecting the passages in the 
writings of the Fathers, in which any reference is 
made to the apocryphal books, by the learned Jere- 
miah Jones, in his " New Method of settling the 
Canon of the New Testament," but the work was left 
incomplete. This author, hoAvever, positively denies 
that it is common for the Fathers to cite these books 
as Scripture, and asserts, that there are only a very 
few instances, in which any of them seem to have 
fallen into this mistake. 

A third proof of the genuineness of the Canon of 
the New Testament, may be derived from the fact, 
that these books were publicly read as Scripture, in 
all the Christian churches. 

As the Jews were accustomed to read the sacred 
Scriptures of the Old Testament in their Synagogues, 



EEAD IN THE CHURCHES. 135 

SO the early Christians transferred the same practice 
to the church ; and it seems to have been in use even 
in the apostles' days, as appears by Col. iv. 16, where 
Paul speaks of reading the Epistles addressed to the 
churches, as a thing of course, " And when this Epis- 
tle is read among you, cause that it be read also in 
the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise 
read the Epistle from Laodicea." 

Justin Martyr explicitly testifies, that this was the 
custom in the beginning of the second century. "On 
the day," says he, "which is called Sunday, there is 
a meeting of all (Christians) who live either in cities, 
or country places, and the memoirs of the apostles, 
and writings of the prophets, are read."* 

Tertullian is equally explicit ; for, in giving an 
account of the meetings of Christians for worship, he 
says, " They assemble to read the Scriptures, and 
offer up prayers;" and in another place, among the 
solemn exercises of the Lord's Day, he reckons, " Read- 
ing the Scriptures, singing Psalms," &c.t 

The same account is given by Cyprian, J and by 
the ancient author under the name of Dionysius the 
Areopagite ; § and by several other ancient authors. 
Now this practice of reading the sacred Scriptures in 
the Christian churches, began so early that it is 
scarcely possible that they could have been imposed 
on by supposititious writings. A more effectual 
method of guarding against apocryphal writings ob- 
taining a place in the Canon, could not have been 
devised. It afforded all the members of the church 
an opportunity of knowing what books were acknow- 

* Apol. ii. p. 93. t TertuU. De Anima. 

I Cyp. Epist. 36, 39. § Hierarch. Eco. c. 3. 



136 THE CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE 

ledged as canonical, and precluded all opportunity of 
foisting in spurious works ; since, if this had been 
done in some one church, the practice of all other 
churches would quickly have exposed the imposture. 
Accordingly, the Fathers often referred to this custom, 
as the guide to the people, respecting the books which 
they should read. "Avoid apocryphal books," says 
Cyril to his catechumen, " and study carefully those 
Scriptures only which are publicly read in the church." 
Again, having given a catalogue of the books of 
Scripture, he adds: "Let others be rejected; and 
such as are not read in the churches, neither do you 
read in private." 

It was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, " That 
no private Psalms should be read in the churches, nor 
any books without the Canon ; but only the canonical 
writings of the Old and New Testament." The same 
thing was determined in the Council of Carthage. 
But notwithstanding these decrees, and the opinions 
of learned Fathers, there were some pieces read in 
some of the churches which were not canonical. 
Thus, DiONYSius, bishop of Corinth, in the second 
century, in a letter to the church of Rome, tells them, 
" That they read in their assemblies, on the Lord's 
day, Clement's Epistle." And Eusebius declares, 
" That in his, and the preceding times, it was almost 
universally received, and read in most churches." He 
says also, " That the Shepherd of Hermas was read 
in many churches," which is confirmed by Athanasius 
and Rufin. Whilst these books, which are not now in 
the Canon, were publicly read in many churches, the 
book of Revelation was not, according to Cyril, read 
in the churches ; nor commanded to be read by the 



READ m THE CHURCHES. 137 

Council of Laodicea. It would seem, therefore, at 
first view, that the application of this rule would 
exclude the book of Revelation from the Canon, and 
take in "the Epistle of Clement," and "the Shepherd 
of Hermas." But the rule does not apply to every- 
thing which was read in the churches, but to such 
books as were read as sacred Scripture. It has ap- 
peared in a former part of this work, that several 
books, not in the Canon of the Old Testament, were 
nevertheless read in the churches ; but the Fathers 
carefully distinguished between these and the canoni- 
cal books. They were read for instruction and for 
the improvement of manners, but not as authority in 
matters of faith. They distinguished the books read, 
in the churches, into Qanonical and Ecclesiastical; 
of the latter kind, were the books mentioned above, 
and some others. The reason why the book of Reve- 
lation was not directed to be read publicly, shall be 
assigned, when we come to treat particularly of the 
canonical authority of that book. 

A fourth argument to prove that our Canon of the 
New Testament is substantially correct, may be de- 
rived from the early versions of this sacred book into 
other languages. 

Although the Greek language was extensively 
known through the Roman empire, when the apostles 
wTote, yet the Christian church was in a short time 
extended into regions, where the common people, at 
least, were not acquainted with it, nor with any lan- 
guage except their own vernacular tongue. While 
the gift of tongues continued, the difficulty of making 
known the Gospel, would in some measure be obvia- 
ted; but when these miraculous powers ceased, the 
12* 



138 EARLY VERSIONS 

necessity of a version of the Gospels and Epistles into 
the language of the people would become manifest. 
As far, therefore, as we may be permitted to reason 
from the nature of the case, and the necessities of the 
churches, it is exceedingly probable, that versions of 
the New Testament were made shortly after the death 
of the apostles, if they were not begun before. Can 
we suppose that the numerous Christians in Syria, 
Mesopotamia, and the various parts of Italy, would be 
long left without having these precious books trans- 
lated into a language which all the people could un- 
derstand ? But we are not left to our own reasonings 
on this subject. We know, that at a very early period, 
there existed Latin versions of the New Testament, 
which had been so long in use before the time of 
Jerome, as to have become considerably corrupt, on 
which account he undertook a new version, which 
soon superseded those that were more ancient. Now, 
although nothing remains of these ancient Latin 
versions, but uncertain fragments, yet we have good 
evidence that they contained the same books, as were 
inserted in Jerome's version, now denominated the 
Vulgate. 

But, perhaps, the Old Syriac version of the New 
Testament, called Peshito, furnishes the strongest 
proof of the canonical authority of all the books 
which are contained in it. This excellent version has 
a very high claim to antiquity ; and, in the opinion 
of some of the best Syriac scholars, who have pro- 
foundly examined this subject, was made before the 
close of the first century. 

The arguments for so early an origin, are not, in- 
deed, conclusive, but they possess much probability, 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 139 

whether we consider the external, or internal evidence. 
The Syrian Christians have always insisted that this 
version was made by the apostle Thaddeus; but 
without admitting this claim, which would put it on a 
level with the Greek original, we may believe that it 
ought not to be brought down lower than the second 
century. It is universally received by all the numer- 
ous sects of Syrian Christians, and must be anterior 
to the existence of the oldest of them. Manes, who 
lived in the second century, probably had read the 
New Testament in the Syriac, which was his native 
tongue ; and Justin Martyr, when he testifies that 
the Scriptures of the New Testament were read in the 
Assemblies of Christians, on every Sunday, probably 
refers to Syrian Christians, as Syria was his native 
place ; where, also, he had his usual residence. And 
Michaelis is of opinion, that Melito, who wrote 
about A. D. 170, has expressly declared, that a Syrian 
version of the Bible existed in his time. Jerome 
also testifies, explicitly, that when he wrote, the Syriac 
Bible was publicly read in the churches ; for, says he, 
" Ephrem the Syrian is held in such veneration, that 
his writings are read in several churches, immediately 
after the Lessons from the Bible. It is also well 
known that the Armenian version, which itself is 
ancient, was made from the Syriac. 

Now, this ancient version contains the Four Gos- 
pels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul 
including that to the Hebrews, the First Epistle of 
John, the First Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of 
James. Thus far, then, the evidence of the present 
Canon is complete ; and as to those books omitted in 
this version, except Revelation, they are few, and 



140 GENERAL EVIDENCE OF THE 

small, and probably were unknown to the translator or 
the evidence of their geniiineness was not ascertained 
by him. And as it relates to the book of Revelation, 
the same reasons which excluded it from so many 
ancient catalogues, probably operated here. It was 
judged to be too mysterious to be read in the churches, 
and by common Christians, and, therefore, was not 
put into the volume which was read publicly in the 
churches. The arguments for a Latin origin of this 
version possess, in my judgment, very little force.* 

On the general evidence of the genuineness of our 
Canon, I would subjoin the folloAving remarks: 

1. The agreement among those who have given 
catalogues of the books of the New Testament, from 
the earliest times, is almost complete. Of thirteen 
catalogues, to which we have referred, seven contain 
exactly the same books, as are now in the Canon. 
Three of the others differ in nothing but the omission 
of the book of Revelation, for which they had a par- 
ticular reason, consistent with their belief of its canoni- 
cal authority ; and in two of the remaining catalogues, 
it can be proved, that the books omitted, or represented 
as doubtful, were received as authentic by the persons 
who have furnished the catalogues. It may be as- 
serted, therefore, that the consent of the ancient 
church, as to what books belonged to the Canon of the 
New Testament, was complete. The sacred volume 
was as accurately formed, and as clearly distinguished 
from other books, in the third, fourth, and fifth cen- 
turies, as it has ever been since. 

* On this whole subject consult Jones on the Canon, Mi- 
chaelis's Introduction, Mill's Prolegomena. 



GENUINENESS OF THE CANON, 141 

2. Let it be considered, moreover, that the earliest 
of these catalogues was made by Origen, who lived 
within a hundred years after the death of the apostle 
John, and who, by his reading, travels, and long resi- 
dence in Palestine, had a full knowledge of all the 
transactions and writings of the church, until his own 
time. In connection with this, let it be remembered, 
that these catalogues were drawn up by the most 
learned, pious, and distinguished men in the church ; 
or by councils ; and that the persons furnishing them 
resided in different and remote parts of the world. 
As, for example, in Jerusalem, Cesaraea, Carthage and 
Hippo in Africa, Constantinople, Cyprus, Alexandria 
in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Thus, it appears, 
that the Canon was early agreed upon, and that it 
was everywhere the same ; therefore, we find the 
Fathers, in all their writings, appealing to the same 
Scriptures; and none are charged with rejecting any 
canonical book, except heretics. 

3. It appears from the testimony adduced, that it 
was never considered necessary, that any council, or 
bishop, should give sanction to these books, in any 
other way, than as witnesses, testifying to the churches, 
that these were indeed the genuine writings of the 
apostles. These books, therefore, were never con- 
sidered as deriving their authority from the Church, 
or from Councils, but were of complete authority as 
soon as published ; and were delivered to the churches 
to be a guide and standard in all things relating to 
faith and practice. The Fathers would have considered 
it impious, for any bishop or Council, to pretend to 
add anything to the authority of inspired books ; or to 
claim the right to add other books to those handed 



142 GENERAL EVIDENCE OF THE 

down from the apostles. The churcli is founded on 
"the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the 
chief corner stone;" but the sacred Scriptures are no- 
way dependent for their authority on any set of men 
who lived since they were written. 

4. We may remark, in the last place, the benignant 
providence of God towards his church, in causing 
these precious books to be written, and in watching 
over their preservation, in the midst of dangers and 
persecutions ; so that, notwithstanding the malignant 
designs of the enemies of the church, they have all 
come down to us unmutilated, in the original tongue 
in which they were penned by the apostles. 

Our liveliest gratitude is due to the great Head of 
the church for this divine treasure, from which we are 
permitted freely to draw whatever is needful for our 
instruction and consolation. And it is our duty to 
prize this precious gift of divine revelation above all 
price. On the Law of the Lord, we should meditate 
day and night. It is a perfect rule ; it shines with a 
clear light ; it exercises a salutary influence on the 
heart ; it warns us when we are in danger, reclaims 
us when we go astray, and comforts us when in afflic- 
tion. The word of the Lord is " more to be desired 
than gold, yea, than much fine gold ; sweeter also than 
honey, and the honey-comb." Psa. xix. 10. They who 
are destitute of this inestimable volume call for our 
tenderest compassion, and our exertions in circulating 
the Bible should never be remitted, until all are sup- 
plied with this divine treasure. But they who possess 
this sacred volume, and yet neglect to study it, are 
still more to be pitied, for they are perishing in the 



GENUINENESS OF THE CANON. 143 

midst of plenty. In the midst of light, they walk in 
darkness. God has sent to them the word of life, but 
they have lightly esteemed the rich gift of his love. 
that their eyes were opened, that they might behold 
wondrous things in the law of the Lord ! 



144 ORDER OF THE BOOKS 



SECTION III. 



ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TIME OP 

THE GOSPELS BEING WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE EVAN- 
GELISTS. 

The order of the books of the New Testament is not 
uniform, in the manuscripts now extant, nor as they 
are mentioned by the Fathers. Eusebius arranges 
them thus : the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, 
and the Revelation of John. '' These," says he, 
'' were received (except the last mentioned) by all 
Christians." Then, he mentions those which were 
not unanimously received ; as, the Epistle of James, 
the Epistle of Jude, the Second of Peter, and the 
Second and Third of John. 

Iren^us, who lived long before Eusebius, has not 
given a regular catalogue of the books of the New 
Testament, but he seems to have followed the same 
order. 

But Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, has given 
the following order : The Four Gospels, the Acts of 
the Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles, the Four- 
teen Epistles of Paul, and the Revelation. The 
ancient and celebrated Alexandrian Manuscript fol- 
lows the same order ; as also does Cyril of Jerusalem, 
but he does not mention Revelation. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145 

The arrangement, in the catalogue of the Council 
of Laodicea, is exactly the same as that of Cyril ; the 
book of Revelation being left out. John Damascene, 
and Leontius, follow the same order. 

The order of the Syrian catalogues as given by 
Ebedjesu, is — The Four Gospels, the Acts of the 
Apostles, the Three Catholic Epistles, (their Canon 
at first contained no more,) and the Fourteen Epistles 
of Paul. 

Rufin's order is — The Gospels, the Acts, Paul's 
Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation. 
The Council of Carthage has the same. Gregory 
Nazianzen the same ; only the Revelation is omitted. 
Amphilochius the same, and the book of Revelation, 
mentioned as doubtful. Nicephorus of Constantino- 
ple, the same, and Revelation omitted. 

This, therefore, appears to have been the order in 
which the books of the New Testament succeeded each 
other in most ancient copies ; and is the one now in 
general use. 

But Epiphanius has an order different from any of 
these, as follows — The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles, 
the Acts of the Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles, 
and the Revelation. Jerome follows the same order ; 
and also Euthalius. 

Augustine varies in his arrangement of the sacred 
books. In one place, he puts the Acts last, except 
Revelation ; and in another, he places it after Revela- 
tion. He also varies in his arrangement of the Epistles 
of Paul, and of the Catholic Epistles. 

The order of Innocent the First, bishop of Rome, 
is : The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles, the Catholic 
Epistles, the Acts, and Revelation. 
13 



146 ORDER OF THE BOOKS 

Isidore of Seville has, in his writings, given several 
catalogues, in all of which he pursues the order last 
mentioned. The same writer informs us, that the 
books of the New Testament were usually included in 
two divisions, or volumes ; the first containing the 
Gospels ; the second, the Acts and the Epistles ; the 
book of Revelation being omitted. 

Chrysostom follows an order which appears to be 
peculiar : he places first, the Fourteen Epistles of 
Paul ; next, the Four Gospels ; then, the Acts ; and 
in the last place, the Catholic Epistles. Gelasius 
places Revelation before the Catholic Epistles. The 
Apostolical Canon, as it is called, contains the follow- 
ing catalogue : The Four Gospels, Fourteen Epistles 
of Paul, Seven Catholic Epistles, Two Epistles of Cle- 
ment, the Constitutions, and the Acts. If this were, 
indeed, the genuine Canon of the apostles, as the title 
imports, it would be decisive, and all other authorities 
would be superfluous ; but it is acknowledged by all 
good critics, that it is spurious, and of no authority in 
settling the early Canon. 

The order of the Four Gospels has generally been, 
as in our copies', Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Iren- 
8eus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, the Council of 
Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, the 
Syrian Catalogues, Jerome, Rufin, Augustine, the 
Alexandrian Manuscript with most others, agree in 
this order. 

But that this order was not uniform, appears from 
Tertullian, who arranges them thus — Matthew, John, 
Luke, Mark. And the same order of the Gospels is 
followed, in the very ancient Manuscript, commonly 
called. Codex Cantabrigiensis. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 147 

There is very little variation observed in the ar- 
rangement of Paul's Epistles. They are generally 
found in the same order as we have them in our 
copies ; but this is not universally the case : for in 
some copies, the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the 
fourteenth place among Paul's Epistles, and in others 
the tenth. But in all copies, the Epistle to the 
Romans stands first, though not first in the order 
of time. 

With respect to the time when the gospels were 
Avritten, no precise information can be obtained, as 
ancient authors difi'er considerably on the subject. 
It seems to be agreed, however, that they were not 
published immediately after the ascension of Christ : 
nor all at the same time. The best thing which we 
can do is to place before the reader the principal 
testimonies of the Fathers, and leave him to judge for 
himself.* 

The earliest writer who says anything explicitly on 
this subject is Iken^us; but he does not inform us 
what time intervened between the resurrection of 
Christ, and the writing of these gospels. His words 
are ; " For we have not received the knowledge of the 
way of salvation, from any others than those by whom 
the gospel has been brought to us, which gospel they 
first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, 
committed to wi'iting, that for time to come it might 
be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor, may 
any say that they preached before they had a compe- 
tent knowledge of the gospel ; for after that our Lord 

* The testimonies here adduced are, for the most part, selected 
from the collections of Lardner, to whose works the reader is 
referred. 



148 WHEN THE GOSPELS WEEE WRITTEN. 

rose from the dead, and they were endued, from 
above, with the power of the Holy Ghost, which had 
come down upon them, they received a perfect know- 
ledge of all things. They went forth to all the ends 
of the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly 
peace ; having all of them, and every one of them, 
the gospel of God." 

Now let it be considered, that Irenseus was the dis- 
ciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle 
John, and this testimony will have great weight in 
confirming the fact, that the gospels were written by 
the apostles, some time after they began to preach ; 
and that, wherever the apostles went, they preached 
the same gospel to the people. 

EuSEBius, to whom we are obliged so often to have 
recourse as a witness of ancient ecclesiastical facts, 
does not fail us here ; " Those admirable and truly 
divine men," says he, "the apostles of Christ, did not 
attempt to deliver the doctrine of their master, with 
the artifice and eloquence of words. . . . Nor were 
they concerned about writing books, being engaged in 
a more excellent ministry, which is above all human 
power. Insomuch that Paul, the most able of all, in 
the furniture of words and ideas, has left nothing in 
writing but a few Epistles. Nor were the rest of our 
Saviour's followers unacquainted with these things, as 
the seventy disciples, and many others besides the 
twelve apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of 
our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any 
Memoirs ; who, also, as we have been informed, were 
impelled to write, by a kind of necessity."* 

* Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 29. Eusebius also, in c. xxx, mentions 
several spurious books, falsely attributed to the apostles. "Among 



WHEN THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN. 149 

Theodore of Mopsuesta, who lived in tlie latter 
part of the fourth century, has left us the following 
testimony ; " After the Lord's ascension to heaven, 
the disciples stayed a good while at Jerusalem, visiting 
the cities in the vicinity, and preaching chiefly to the 
Jews : and the great Paul was appointed, openly to 
preach the gospel to the Gentiles." "In process of 
divine Providence, they, not being allowed to confine 
themselves to any one part of the earth, were con- 
ducted to remote countries. Peter went to Rome ; 
the others elsewhere. John took up his abode at 

Ephesus, visiting, however, other parts of Asia 

About this time, the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and 
Luke, published their gospels, which were soon spread 
over the world, and were received by all the faithful 

with great regard Numerous Christians in 

Asia having brought these gospels to John, earnestly 
entreated him to write a further account of such things 
as were needful to be known, and had been omitted 
by the rest ; with which request he complied." 

By divers Christian writers of antiquity, it has been 
asserted, that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of 
Peter, at the earnest request of the brethren at Rome, 
wrote a short gospel, according to what he had heard 
related by Peter. This testimony, among others, is 
given by Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men. 

It is probable that Peter did not visit Rome before 
the reign of Nero ; perhaps not until Paul had re- 
turned a second time to that city, which must have 
been as late as the year A. D. 63 or 64. Now, as 

those," says he, " which must be numbered among the spurious 
is. The Acts of Paul," "The Pastor," and «' The Revelation of 
Peter." 

13* 



150 WHEN THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN. 

the brethren requested of Mark to give them in 
writing the substance of Peter's preaching, his gospel 
could not have been written at an earlier period. 
And, it would seem, if this fact be undoubted, that 
they had, until this time, never seen a written gospel ; 
and, probably, did not know that there was one in 
existence. 

The Jewish war, according to Josephus, began in 
the year of our Lord 66, and ended in September of 
the year 70 ; when the city and temple were brought 
to desolation. Now, there is strong probable evidence, 
that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were 
finished before this war commenced ; that is, before 
the year of our Lord sixty-six. Each of them con- 
tains the predictions of our Lord respecting the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, and there is no hint in any of 
them, that the remarkable events connected with this 
overthrow had begun to make their appearance. But 
there are some expressions in these gospels, which 
probably indicate, that the writers thought that these 
wonderful events were at hand ; such as the following 
admonition, " Let him that readeth understand." 

It is certain that the Acts of the Apostles could not 
have been finished before A. D. 62 or 63, because the 
history which it contains comes down to that time. 
The gospel by Luke was probably written a short 
time before. At least, this seems to be the common 
opinion of learned men. Jerome supposes that he 
composed his gospel at Rome. Grotius thinks, that 
when Paul left Rome Luke went into Greece, and 
there wrote his gospel and the Acts. 

From the introduction to Luke's gospel, it would 
seem that he knew nothing of any authentic written 



THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 151 

gospel at that time ; for he cannot be supposed to 
refer to such, when he says, "Eorasmuch as many 
have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration 
of those things which are most surely believed among 
us ;" and if he had known that Matthew had WTitten 
a gospel, he could not easily have avoided some refer- 
ence to it in this place. But the inference of Lardner 
from this fact, that no authentic gospel had been writ- 
ten before this time, is unauthorized, and repugnant 
to all the testimony which we have on the subject. 
The gospel of Matthew might have been circulating 
for some time among the churches in Judea, and yet 
not be known to Luke, whose labours and travels led 
him, in company with Paul, to visit the Gentile coun- 
tries and cities. If we pay any regard to the opinions 
of those, who lived nearest the times of the apostles, 
we must believe that the gospel of Matthew was first 
"written, and in the vernacular dialect of Judea, com- 
monly called Hebrew. The writer of this gospel is 
also called Levi, the son of Alpheus. He was a Gal- 
ilean by nation, and a publican by profession. When 
called to follow Christ, he was sitting at the receipt 
of custom, where the taxes were paid, but he immedi- 
ately left all these temporal concerns, and attached 
himself to Christ, who afterwards selected him as one 
of the twelve. From this time he seems to have been 
constantly with Christ until his crucifixion, of which 
event he was doubtless a witness ; as he was also of 
the resurrection and ascension of his Lord. On the 
day of Pentecost, he was present with his brethren, 
and partook of the rich spiritual endowments, which 
were then bestowed on the apostles. But afterwards 
there is no explicit mention of him in the New Testa- 



152 THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 

ment. In his own catalogue of the twelve, his name 
occupies the eighth place, as it does in the Acts ; but 
in the lists of the apostles, contained in the gospels of 
Luke and Mark, it occupies the seventh place. 

There is an almost total obscurity resting on the 
history of this apostle and evangelist. The scene of 
his labours, after he left Judea, seems to have been in 
regions of which we possess very little accurate infor- 
mation to this day. But whether he had Parthia and 
Persia, or Ethiopia, for the field of his apostolical 
labours, the ancients are not agreed. It is by no 
means impossible that he should have preached the 
gospel, and planted churches, in each of these coun- 
tries. The historian Socrates, in his distribution of 
the apostles among the countries of the globe, assigns 
Ethiopia to Matthew, Parthia to Thomas, and India 
to Bartholomew. 

The testimony of Eusebius is as follows : " This 
then was the state of the Jews, but the apostles and 
disciples of our Lord, being dispersed abroad, preached 
in the whole world, Thomas in Parthia ; Andrew in 
Scythia, John in Asia, who having lived there a long 
time, died at Ephesus. Peter preached to the dis- 
persed Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappa- 
docia, and Asia ; at length, coming to Home, he was 
there crucified, with his head tui-ned , down towards the 
earth, at his own request. Paul also died a martyr at 
Rome, as we are informed by Origen, in the third tome 
of his work on Genesis." But Eusebius makes no 
mention of the apostle Matthew ; nor does Jerome, in 
his account of Illustrious Men.* 

Clement of Alexandria mentions a circumstance of 

* Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 1. 



THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 153 

this apostle's mode of life, but nothing more : he says, 
" That he was accustomed to use a very spare diet, 
eating vegetables, but no flesh." 

Chrysostom, in one of his Homilies, gives the cha- 
racter of Matthew, but furnishes us with no facts. 

It is probable, therefore, that very little was known 
in the west, respecting the lives, labours and death, of 
those apostles who travelled far to the east. None of 
them, it is probable, ever returned ; and there existed 
no regular channels for the communication of intelli- 
gence from those distant regions. The honour of 
martyrdom has been given to them all, and the thing 
is not improbable ; but there are no authentic records, 
from which we can derive any certain information on 
this subject. The Fathers, whose writings have come 
down to us, seem to have been as much in the dark as 
we are, respecting the preaching and death of the 
majority of the apostles. There are, it is true, tradi- 
tions in Ethiopia and the east, in regard to some of 
them, but they are too uncertain to deserve any serious 
consideration. 



154 TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 



SECTION IV. 

TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL TIME OF PUBLICA- 
TION LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY COM- 
POSED. 

But wliile we know so little of the apostolical labours 
of the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to find that 
the testimonies respecting the genuineness of his gospel 
are so early and full. To these we will now direct our 
attention. 

Barnabas, the companion of Paul, is said by the 
ancient ecclesiastical writers, to have left an Epistle 
of some length. This is mentioned by Origen, Jerome 
and Eusebius, and is frequently quoted by Clement of 
Alexandria. An Epistle under his name is still extant, 
but whether written by this apostolic man is very much 
disputed. Whoever was the author, it seems to have 
been written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
and by a zealous Christian. In this Epistle, there are 
many sentences found in the gospel of Matthew, but 
no reference to any book of the New Testament. In 
some of them, however, there are evident signs that 
these passages which are found in the gospel were 
quotations. One of these is in Matthew xx. 16. And 
in this Epistle it is thus introduced; "Let us, there- 
fore, beware, lest it should happen unto us, as it is 
written, There are many called, but few chosen." 

As the Christians who lived at the beginning of the 



TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 155 

gospel, did not receive their instruction from written 
gospels, but from the preaching of the apostles, they 
would often express in their writings the same things 
in substance which we read in the Evangelists, so that 
unless they use marks of quotation, it cannot be cer- 
tainly known that these phrases are cited from any 
book. They may have learnt them from hearing the 
apostles, or even Christ himself. But when they in 
the text cited, say, as it is written, it may fairly be 
inferred, that when found in one of the gospels it was 
taken from it. 

The circumstance above mentioned furnishes a satis- 
factory reason for the fact, that in the writings of the 
apostolical Fathers, there is so seldom any reference 
to the books of the New Testament. These men re- 
ceived their knowledge of Christianity before any of 
the books of the New Testament were written ; and 
although they existed when they wrote, they would not 
be so likely to refer to them as if they had derived 
their knowledge from them. 

Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was acquainted 
with the Apostle John, expressly mentions Matthew's 
gospel ; and asserts, " That he wrote the divine oracles 
in Hebrew.""^ 

Justin Martyr, who lived in the middle of the 
second century, has in many places cited the very 
words of the gospel of Matthew, but without men- 
tioning his name. One instance will be sufficient: 
" And it is written in the gospel, that he said, All 
things are delivered to me of my Father, and no man 
knoweth the Son but the Father : neither the Father, 
save the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal 
* See Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. xxxix. 



ISO" TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 

him." This is taken from the gospel of Matthew, 
xi. 27.* 

iRENiEUS, bishop of Lyons, who was born in Asia, 
and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the 
apostle John, gives the following testimony: "We 
have not received the knowledge of the way of our 
salvation by any others, than those through whom the 
gospel has come down to us ; which gospel they first 
preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, trans- 
mitted to us in writing, that it might be the foundation 
and pillar of our faith." — '"^Eor after our Lord had 
risen from the dead, and they were clothed with the 
power of the Holy Spirit descending upon them from 
on high, were filled with all gifts, and possessed per- 
fect knowledge, they went forth to the ends of the 
earth, spreading the glad tidings of those blessings 
which God has conferred on us, and announcing peace 
from heaven to men ; having all, and every one alike, 
the gospel of God. Matthew among the Hebrews 
published a gospel in their own language ; while Peter 
and Paul were preaching the gospel at Rome and 
founding a church there. And after their departure, 
Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself 
delivered to us in writing what Peter preached ; and 
Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded the gospel 
preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of 
the Lord, who leaned upon his breast, likewise pub- 
lished a gospel, while he dwelt at Ephesus, in Asia. 
And all these have taught us, that there is one God, 
the maker of heaven and earth, announced by the law 
and the prophets; and one Christ, the Son of GoD."f 

In another place Irenseus characterizes all the four 
* Dialogue with Trypho. f Contra Hseres. lib. iii. c. i. p. 1 73. 



TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 157 

gospels, by setting down the beginning of each ; where 
of Matthew he says, "Matthew proclaims his human 
generation, saying, The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the 
Son of David, the Son of Abraham." 

In another place he says, " The gospel of Matthew 
was delivered to the Jews." 

This early testimony from a learned man living so 
near the times of the apostles is invaluable, and must 
be satisfactory to every candid mind of the genuine- 
ness of the four gospels. Other decisive testimonies 
might be adduced from the same author, but they are 
unnecessary. 

Hegesippus, who also lived and flourished in the 
second century, was the author of an Ecclesiastical 
History extending from the death of Christ to his own 
times, which unhappily has not come down to us. All 
that remains is a few fragments preserved by Euse- 
bius. In one of these he cites a passage from the 
gospel of Matthew xiii. 16, " Blessed are your eyes 
which see, and your ears which hear." 

Athenagoras also was a writer of the second cen- 
tury. He wrote two books, one on the Resurrection, 
the other, an Apology for the Christians. Of this 
man Philip Sidetes says, " that he was a heathen and 
determined to write against Christianity, but by read- 
ing the gospels was converted. He has citations from 
nearly all the books of the New Testament. From 
the gospel of Matthew he quotes the following words; 
"Love your enemies, bless them that cm^se you, pray 
for them that persecute you, that ye may be the 
children of your Father which is in heaven, who maketh 
his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth 
rain on the just and unjust." Matt. v. 44, 45. 
14 



158 TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 

Origen, who was born in the second century, and 
wrote and flourished in the beginning of the third, has 
left us the following testimony: "According to the 
traditions received by me, the first gospel was written 
by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards a disciple of 
Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, 
composed in the Hebrew language." And in another 
place he says, " Matthew wrote for the Hebrews." 

EuSEBius, who lived about a hundred years later 
than Origen, informs us, that " Matthew, having first 
preached the gospel to the Hebrews, when about to go 
to other people, delivered to them, in their own lan- 
guage, the gospel written by himself; by that sup- 
plying the want of his presence with them, whom he 
was about to leave."* 

In the Synopsis, which has been ascribed to Atha- 
NASius, it is said, " Matthew wrote his gospel in the 
Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem." Cyril of 
Jerusalem testifies, " That Matthew wrote in Hebrew." 
Epiphanius says the same, and adds, " Matthew wrote 
first, and Mark soon after him, being a follower of 
Peter at Rome," Gregory Nazianzen says, "That 
Matthew wrote for the Hebrews." Ebedjesu, the 
Syrian, " That Matthew, the first Evangelist, pub- 
lished his gospel in Palestine, written in Hebrew." 

Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew, testifies 
that " The first Evangelist is Matthew, the publican, 
surnamed Levi, who wrote his gospel in Judea, in the 
Hebrew language, chiefly for the Jews who believed 
in Jesus, and did not join the shadow of the law with 
the truth of the gospel." 

* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 21. 



TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S OOSPEL. 159 

Again, in Ms book of Ecclesiastical Writers, he says, 
" Matthew, called also Levi, of a publican made an apos- 
tle, first of all wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language, 
for the sake of those in Judea who believed. By whom 
it was afterwards translated into Greek is uncertain." 

Chrysostom, in his introduction to this gospel, 
writes, ^* Matthew is said to have written his gospel at 
the request of the Jewish believers, who desired him 
to put down in writing what he had said to them by 
word of mouth ; and it is said he wrote in Hebrew." 

Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, lived in the latter 
part of the second century, and wrote several works. 
Jerome in his prologue to the gospel of Matthew, says, 
'' I have read the commentaries of Theophilus, bishop 
of Antioch." In another place he says : " Theophilus, 
the seventh bishop of Antioch after Peter, who col- 
lected into one the words of the four gospels." 

It would be unnecessary to adduce any testimonies 
from later writers ; but as they mention some circum- 
stances probably received by tradition, and not con- 
tained in the earlier testimonies, I will subjoin a few 
of them. 

CoSMAS, who lived in the sixth century, reports, 
that '' Matthew is the first that wrote a gospel. A 
persecution having arisen after the stoning of Stephen, 
and he having resolved to go from that place, the be- 
lievers entreated him to leave with them a written 
instruction ; with which request he complied." 

Another author of this century, who wrote a dis- 
course on Matthew, has left this testimony : " The 
occasion of Matthew's writing is said to have been this 
— there being a great persecution in Palestine, so that 
there was danger lest the faithful should be dispersed ; 



160 TIME OF WRITING MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 

that they might not be without teaching, they re- 
quested Matthew to write for them an accurate history 
of all Christ's words and works ; that wherever they 
should be, they might have with them the ground of 
their faith." 

In the Paschal Chronicle, written in the seventh 
century, it is intimated, that Matthew published his 
gospel about fifteen years after our Lord's ascension. 

EuTHYMius, in the beginning of the twelfth century, 
says, " That this gospel was first written in the He- 
brew language for the Jewish believers, eight years 
after our Lord's ascension." 

From these testimonies, it appears, that the Fathers 
had no certain knowledge of the exact time when 
Matthew wrote his gospel. Irenseus refers it to the 
period when Paul and Peter were preaching at Rome, 
but he speaks vaguely on the subject. 

The writers who mention a precise time, lived at 
too late a period to give testimony on this subject. 
But all agree, that this was the first gospel written. 

Among the moderns, there is much diversity of 
opinion, as might be expected, where there is little 
else than conjecture to guide them. Laedner and 
Basnage supposed that this gospel was not written 
before A. J). 64. Cave thought that it was written 
fifteen years after the ascension of Christ. Jeremiah 
Jones is in favour of that opinion which places it 
eight years after the ascension. Grotius and G. J. 
Yossius are of the same opinion. So also is Wet- 
STEIN. But TiLLEMONT carries it up to the third 
year after the crucifixion of our Saviour.* Lardner 

* Tomline, Tovvnson, Home. Townsend, &c. plead for an early 
origin of this gospel, referring it to A. D. 36 or 37. 



ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 161 

and Percy have adduced arguments for a late origin 
of this gospel, derived from internal evidence, but 
they are of very inconsiderable weight. 

As it is agreed that it was written before Matthew 
left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign parts, and 
as this event seems to have occurred after the perse- 
cution which was raised at Judea against the church, 
it seems probable, that they are nearest the truth, 
who place it about eight years after the ascension of 
Christ ; which date unites more writers in its support 
than any other. 

Not only the date, but the original language of this 
gospel has been made a subject of controversy. By 
the testimonies already cited, it seems that there was 
but one opinion among the ancients in regard to this 
matter. With one voice they inform us, that it was 
written in Hebrew ; or in the vernacular tongue of 
the Jews, which in the Scriptures, and by the Chris- 
tian Fathers, is called Hebrew. This language is now 
called Syro-Chaldaic, or Western Aramean, but it 
consisted chiefly of words derived from Hebrew origin, 
and was, in fact, the Hebrew corrupted by a large 
mixture of foreign words, and by various changes in 
the prefixes and affixes of the words. This was the 
language in which Jesus Christ spoke and delivered 
all his discourses ; and which the apostles were accus- 
tomed to speak from their childhood. 

Although the Greek language was understood by- 
all the learned in Judea at this time, and by many of 
the people, yet it was not the vernacular language of 
the JoAvs dwelling in Palestine. In a book composed 
for the immediate use of the churches in Judea, it was 
necessary that it should be in that language which they 
14* 



162 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE 

all understood ; which was neither pure Hebrew nor 
Greek. The testimony of the Fathers is, therefore, 
strengthened by a consideration of the nature of the 
case. And if it were not so, yet when the judgment 
of modern critics stands opposed to the universal testi- 
mony of the ancients, in regard to a matter of fact, 
which occured not long before their time, there ought 
to be no hesitation which is most deserving of credit. 

There is, however, one difficulty attending this 
opinion, which is, that it supposes that the original of 
this gospel is lost, and we have now nothing but a 
translation, which opinion would lessen its canonical 
■ authority. 

It must be confessed, that this is a consequence of a 
serious kind, and one which ought not to be received 
respecting any canonical book without necessity. But 
does this conclusion necessarily follow from the admis- 
sion, that this gospel was originally composed in the 
Hebrew language ? Might there not have been a ver- 
sion immediately prepared by the writer himself, or by 
some other person under his superintendence? This 
being the first gospel that was composed, it would 
naturally be in great request with all Christians who 
knew of its existence ; and as none but the JeAvish 
Christians could understand it, as first published, it is 
exceedingly probable, that a request was made of the 
author to publish an edition of it in Greek, also, by 
those who did not understand the Hebrew; or, by 
such as were going to preach the gospel in countries 
where the Greek language was in common use. 

It has been considered a strong objection to the 
Hebrew original of this gospel, that no person, whose 
writings have come down to us, has intimated that he 



OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 163 

had ever seen it ; and from the earliest times it seems 
to have existed in the Greek language. But this fact 
is perfectly consistent with the supposition now made ; 
for the desolation of Judea, and dispersion of the Jew- 
ish Christians, having taken place within a few years 
after the publication of Matthew's gospel, the copies 
of the original Hebrew would be confined to the Jew- 
ish converts ; and as other Christians had copies in 
the Greek, of equal authenticity with the Hebrew, no 
inquiries would be made after the latter. These Jew- 
ish Christians, after their removal, dwindled away in 
a short time, and a large part of them became erro- 
neous in their faith ; and though they retained the 
Hebrew gospel of Matthew, they altered and corrupted 
it to suit their own heretical opinions. There is rea- 
son to believe, that the gospel of the Nazarenes, was 
the identical gospel of Matthew, which in process of 
time was greatly mutilated and corrupted by the 
Ebionites. Of this gospel much is said by the Fa- 
thers, and, in the proper place, we shall give some 
account of it.* 

The only remaining objection of any weight against 
the ancient opinion, is, that the gospel according to 
Matthew, as we now have it, has no appearance of 
being a translation, but has the air and style of an 
original. But if the hypothesis, suggested above be 
adopted, this objection also will vanish ; for according 
to this the Greek is an original, as well as the He- 
brew, it having been written by Matthew himself, or 
by some disciple under his direction. But whether 
the Greek of Matthew was written by himself or 
not, it is certain that it was not later than the apos- 
tolic age, and received the approbation of apostles 
* See Note E. 



164 OKIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 

or apostolic men, which is sufficient to establish its 
authenticity.* 

* The learned world have been nearly equally divided on the 
question, whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Greek. 
In favour of the former opinion, may be cited, Bellarmine, Gro- 
tius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Har- 
wood, Owen, Campbell, A. Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius, Du- 
pin, Calmet, Michaelis, and others. In favour of the Greek 
origin of this gospel the names are not less numerous, nor less 
respectable. Among these may be mentioned, Erasmus, Parous, 
Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre, 
Basnage, Wetstein, Rumpseus, Whitby, Edelman, Hoffman, 
Moidenhawer, Viser, Harles, Jones, Jortin, Lardner, Hey, 
Hales, Hewlett, and others. 

The two opinions were supported by a weight of argument 
and authority so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, and a few 
others, have adopted a middle course, viz. the opinion stated 
above, that there were two originals ; by which theory all diffi- 
culties are removed. The only objection is the want of evidence. 
Home and Townsend have adopted this opinion. See Home's 
Introd. vol. iv. Part ii. c. ii. Sec. ii. p. 267. 



GOSPEL OF MARK. 165 



SECTION V. 



GOSPEL OF MARK — ON WHAT OCCASION PUBLISHED AS- 
CRIBED TO THE DICTATION OF PETER BY ALL THE 
FATHERS. 

The author of the second gospel, as they stand in the 
Canon, was Mark ; the same who is mentioned in the 
first Epistle of Peter, (v. 13 ;) but whether he was the 
same as John Mark, of Jerusalem, who travelled for a 
while with Paul and Barnabas, has been doubted by 
Grotius, Cave, Dupin and Tillemont ; but the common 
opinion is in its favour, and the objections to it are 
not of much weight : and as there is no clear evidence, 
that there were two persons of this name mentioned 
in Scripture, I shall consider all that is said of Mark, 
as having reference to the same person. 

Paul was ofi'ended at him because he declined accom- 
panying him and Barnabas on the whole tour which 
they made, to preach the gospel ; for, when they came 
to Perga, Mark departed from them, and returned to 
Jerusalem. And when Paul and Barnabas were about 
to undertake a second journey together,the latter 
insisted on taking Mark as their minister, but Paul 
would by no means consent to it, because he had for- 
saken them on their first mission. This diJOference of 
opinion gave rise to a sharp altercation, which termi- 
nated in the separation of these venerable colleagues. 



166 



WHEN WRITTEN. 



Mark now travelled with Barnabas, but, probably, 
soon afterwards attached himself to Peter, with whom 
he seems to have continued until the death of that 
apostle. 

But Paul himself seems to have been reconciled to 
Mark, and to have valued his assistance in the work 
of the ministry ; for, in his second Epistle to Timothy, 
he writes, "Take Mark and bring him with thee, for 
he is profitable unto me for the ministry." 2 Tim. iv. 
11. He also mentions him in his Epistle to Philemon. 
Phil. 24. 

When this gospel was composed, has not been par- 
ticularly mentioned by any ancient author, except that 
it is said to have been after Peter came to Rome, which 
could not be much earlier than A. D. 62 or 63. It is 
stated, that Mark was requested by the brethren at 
Rome to put down in writing the substance of Peter's 
preaching; and on this account, this gospel among 
the primitive Christians was as familiarly known by 
the name of the gospel of Peter as of Mark. This 
circumstance has led some to assert, that Mark wrote 
his gospel in Latin, as this was the language of Rome ; 
but in those days almost all the Romans understood 
Greek. And the Jewish converts, who composed a 
large portion of the first churches, understood Greek 
much better than Latin. But there is no need to 
argue this point. There is no ancient author who tes- 
tifies that Mark wrote in Latin. The testimony is 
uniform that he wrote in Greek. 

Baronius is almost the only learned man who has 
advocated the Latin origin of the gospel of Mark, 
and he has nothing to produce in favour of this opinion 
from antiquity, except the subscription to the Syriac, 



TESTIMONIES TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 167 

Arabic and Persic versions of the New Testament, 



where, at the end of Mark's gospel, it is said, " He 
spoke and preached in Latin at Rome ;" but this does 
not say that he wrote his gospel in Latin. But these 
subscriptions are of very little authority in matters of 
this kind. No one knows when, or by whom they 
were placed there ; and, although three versions are 
mentioned, they make up no more than one witness^ 
for, probably all the others borrowed this inscription 
from the Syriac. 

Augustine called Mark " the abridger of Mat- 
thew;" and it must be confessed, that he often uses 
the same words, and tells more concisely what the other 
had related more copiously ; yet, there is satisfactory 
evidence, that Mark's gospel is an original work. It 
contains many things which are not in the gospel of 
Matthew, and some mentioned by that Evangelist are 
here related with additional circumstances. 

All authors do not agree that Mark wrote his gospel 
at Rome, but some think at Alexandria: the former 
opinion, however, was received with almost universal 
consent. See the testimony of Irenaeus before cited. 
To which may be added what he says in another place, 
that, " Mark begins with the prophetic spirit which 
came down from above to men, saying, the beginning 
of the gospel of Christ." 

Some of the testimonies of the Fathers respecting 
this gospel will now be given. 

Eusebius out of Papias, and a lost work of Cle- 
ment of Alexandria, relates, " That when Peter in 
the reign of Claudius, had come to Rome, and had 
defeated Simon Magus, the people were so inflamed 
with love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied 



168 mark's gospel. 

witli the hearing of them, unless they also had them 
written down. That accordingly they, with earnest 
entreaties, applied themselves to Mark, the companion 
of Peter, and whose gospel we now have, praying him 
that he would write down for them, and leave with 
them an account of the doctrines which had « been 
preached to them ; that they did not desist in their 
request, till they had prevailed on him, and procured 
his writing that which is now the gospel of Mark ; 
that when Peter came to know this, he was, by the 
direction of the Holy Spirit, pleased with the request 
of the people, and confirmed the gospel which was 
written for the use of the churches."* 

The same Eusebius relates in another part of his 
works, what Papias had testified concerning Mark's 
gospel, " That Mark, who was Peter's interpreter, 
exactly wrote down whatsoever he remembered, though 
not in the same order of time in which the several 
things were said or done by Christ; for he neither 
heard nor followed Christ, but was a companion of 
Peter, and composed his gospel, rather with the intent 
of the people's profit, than writing a regular history ; 
so that he is in no fault, if he wrote some things ac- 
cording to his memory, he designing no more than to 
omit nothing which he had heard, and to relate nothing 
false."t 

Another testimony from Clement of Alexandria 
is given by Eusebius, in which it is said, "When 
Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Kome, by 
the influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts 
desired Mark, as having been long a companion of 
Peter, and who well remembered what he preached, 
* Ecc. Hist. lib. ii. c. 15. f Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 39. 



mark's gospel canonical and inspired. 169 

to write down his discourses : that upon this he com- 
posed his gospel, and gave it to those who made this 
request ; which when Peter knew, he neither ob- 
structed nor encouraged the work."* 

Iren^us says, " That after the death of Peter and 
Paul who had been preaching at Rome, Mark the dis- 
ciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote down what he 
had heard him preach." Tertullian informs us, " That 
the gospel published by Mark may be reckoned Peter's, 
whose interpreter he was." Origen adds, ''That 
Mark wrote his gospel according to the dictates of 
Peter." Jerome tells us, " That Mark the disciple 
and interpreter of Peter, wrote a short gospel from 
what he had heard of Peter, at the request of the 
brethren at Rome, which when Peter knew, he ap- 
proved and published in our churches, commanding 
the reading of it by his own authority." 

Besides these testimonies which are very explicit, 
and all go to show that Mark received his gospel from 
the preaching of Peter, there are some internal evi- 
dences which look the same way. There are in the 
other Evangelists several circumstances and facts which 
make very much for the credit of Peter, not one of 
which is hinted at in this gospel. Particular instances 
of this kind may be read in the third volume of 
"Jones' New Method of Settling the Canon." 

Of the canonical authority of this gospel no one of 
the ancients, I believe, ever entertained a doubt. 
Some of the moderns, however, have questioned whe- 
ther we have any evidence, that Mark and Luke wrote 
by a plenary inspiration since they were not apostles. 
But that Mark's gospel is canonical, is established by all 
* Ecc. Hist. lib. vi. c. 14. 

15 



170 mark's gospel canonical and inspired. 

the rules applicable to the case. It was always con- 
tained in the early catalogues ; was read as Scripture 
in the churches; was quoted as Scripture by the 
Fathers ; was inserted in the earliest versions ; and 
never doubted formerly, by any Christian writer. 
But this subject will be resumed hereafter. 

EuSEBius reports, '' That Peter, out of the abun- 
dance of his modesty, did not think himself worthy to 
write a gospel; but Mark, who was his friend and 
disciple, is said to have recorded Peter's relations, and 
the acts of Jesus." And again, " Peter testifies these 
things of himself, for all things recorded by Mark are 
said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." 

In the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius it is said, 
" That the gospel according to Mark was dictated by 
Peter at Rome, and published by Mark, and preached 
by him in Alexandria, Pentapolis and Libya." 

The testimony of Epiphanius is, " That Matthew 
wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a com- 
panion of Peter at Rome ; that Mark was one of the 
seventy disciples, and likewise one of those who were 
offended at the words of Christ, recorded in the sixth 
chapter of the gospel of John ; that he then forsook 
the Saviour, but was afterwards reclaimed by Peter, 
and being filled with the Spirit wrote a gospel." 

Gregory Nazianzen says, '' That Mark wrote his 
gospel for the Italians." Chrtsostom testifies, that 
'' Mark wrote in Egypt at the request of the believers 
there;" but in another place, he says, "It cannot be 
ascertained in what place each of the Evangelists 
wrote." Victor informs us, "That Mark was also 
called John, and was the son of Mary ; that he wrote a 
gospel after Matthew; that for a while he accom- 



mark's gospel canonical and inspired. 171 

panied Paul and Barnabas liis relation, but when he 
came to Rome he joined Peter. When he was obliged 
to quit Rome, he was requested by the brethren to 
write a history of his preaching, and of his heavenly 
doctrine; with which request he readily complied." 

Cosmas of Alexandria writes, ''That Mark the 
second Evangelist wrote a gospel at Rome, by the dic- 
tation of Peter." (Ecumenius says, " This John who 
also is called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the 
gospel which goes by his name ; and was also the dis- 
ciple of Peter." 

Theophylact informs us, "That the gospel accord- 
ing to Mark was written at Rome, ten years after the 
ascension of Jesus Christ, at the request of the be- 
lievers there ; for this Mark was a disciple of Peter. 
His name was John, and he was nephew to Barnabas, 
the companion of Paul." 

EuTHYMius concurs exactly in this testimony. His 
words are, " The gospel of Mark was written about 
ten years after our Lord's ascension, at the request of 
the believers at Rome, or, as some say, in Egypt ; 
that Mark was, at first, much with his uncle Barnabas 
and Paul, but afterwards went with Peter to Rome, 
from whom he received the whole history of his gos- 
pel." NiCEPHORUS says, "Only two of the twelve 
have left memoirs of our Lord's life, and two of the 
seventy, Mark and Luke." And a little after, "Mark 
and Luke published their gospels, by the direction of 
Peter and Paul." Eutychius, patriarch of Alexan- 
dria, has the following words: "In the time of Nero, 
Peter, the prince of the apostles, making use of Mark, 
wrote a gospel at Rome, in the Roman language." 

The reader will recollect, that this last writer lived 



172 mark's gospel canonical and inspibed. 

as late as the tentli century, wliich will account for 
his calling Peter the prince of the apostles, a language 
entirely foreign to the early ecclesiastical writers. 
And Selden is of opinion, that by the Roman lan- 
guage he meant the Greek, which was then in com- 
mon use at Rome ; and it is well known, that in our 
times the modern Greek language is called Romaic, 
Jones and Lardner concur in the opinion of Selden. 



GOSPEL OF LUKE. 173 



SECTION VI 



GOSPEL OF LUKE — TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS RESPECT- 
ING IT. 

The third gospel is that of Luke. He is mentioned 
in Scripture as the companion of Paul in his travels ; 
and when that apostle was sent a prisoner to Rome 
this evangelist accompanied him, and continued with 
him during his two years' confinement in that city, as 
may be gathered from Paul's Epistles, written during 
this period. Whether he was the same as " the be- 
loved physician," Col. iv. 14, mentioned by Paul, is 
uncertain, but the general opinion is in favour of it. 
It is also disputed, whether or not he was one of the 
seventy disciples. Without undertaking to decide 
these points, I will proceed to lay before the reader 
the principal testimonies of the Fathers respecting 
this gospel and its author. 

Iren^us asserts, " That Luke, the companion of 
Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him." 
Again, he says, " Luke was not only a companion but 
a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul." 
He calls him, "a disciple and fellow-labourer of the 
apostles." " The apostles," says he, " envying none, 
plainly delivered to all the things which they had 
heard from the Lord." So likewise Luke, envying 
no man, has delivered to us what he learned from 
15* 



174 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS 

them, as lie says, " even as they delivered them unto 
us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and 
ministers of his word."* 

EusEBius informs us, that Clement of Alexandria 
bore a large testimony to this, as well as to the other 
gx)spels ; and he mentions a tradition concerning the 
order of the gospels, which Clement had received from 
presbyters of more ancient times — "That the gospels 
containing the genealogies were written first." 

Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as dis- 
ciples of Christ ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the 
apostles; however, he ascribes the same authority to 
the gospels written by them as to the others. " The 
gospel," says he, "which Mark published, may be 
said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was ; and 
Luke's digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed 
it is easy to take that for the Master's which the dis- 
ciples published." Again, "Moreover, Luke was not 
an apostle, but an apostolic man ; not a master but a 
disciple : certainly less than his master ; certainly so 
much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the 
apostles." 

Origen mentions the gospels in the order com- 
monly received — " The third," says he, "is that ac- 
cording to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, pub- 
lished for the sake of the Gentile converts." In his 
commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, which we 
now have in a Latin version only, he writes, " Some 
say Lucius is Lucas, the evangelist, as indeed it is not 
uncommon to write names, sometimes according to the 

* " The gospel according to Luke, being of a priestly charac- 
ter, begins with Zacharias the priest oiFering incense to God." 



CONCERNING LUKE'S GOSPEL. 175 

original form ; sometimes according to the Greek and 
Roman termination." 

EuSEBius has left us the following testimony con- 
cerning Luke the evangelist — " And Luke who was 
of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most 
part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more 
than a slight acquaintance with the other apostles, has 
left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of 
the art of healing souls, which he had learned from 
them. One of them is the gospel which he pro- 
fesseth to have written, as they delivered it to him, 
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and min- 
isters of his word." "With all whom," he says, "he 
had been perfectly acquainted from the first." And 
in another place, he says, " Luke hath delivered, in 
his gospel, a certain account of such things as he had 
been assured of by his intimate acquaintance and 
familiarity with Paul, and his conversation with the 
other apostles."* 

In the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, 
" That the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle 
Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle 
and physician Luke." Gregory Nazianzen says, 
" That Luke wTote for the Greeks ;" and Gregory 
Nyssen, " That Luke was as much a physician for the 
soul as the body." 

The testimony of Jerome concerning Luke is as 
follows : " Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profes- 
sion a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language, 
a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant com- 
panion of his travels, wrote a gospel, and another ex- 
cellent volume, entitled, the Acts of the Apostles 
* Ecc. Hist. Jib. iii. c. iv. 



176 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS 

. . . . It is supposed that Luke did not learn 
his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not 
conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from 
other apostles, which likewise he owns at the beginning 
of his volume, saying, ' Even as they delivered them 
unto us who from the beginning were eye-witnesses 
and ministers of the word.' Therefore, he wrote the 
gospel from the information of others ; but the Acts 
he composed from his own knowledge."* 

The same writer in his preface to his commentary 
on Matthew, says, " The third evangelist is Luke the 
physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of 
the apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the coun- 
tries of Achaia and Boeotia." In another place he 
observes, '* That some said that Luke had been a pro- 
selyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christian- 
ity." Chrysostom, in his first homily on the gospel 
of Matthew, has this remark : " Luke had the fluency 
of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning 
of their masters." 

Isidore of Seville, says, " Of the four evangelists, 
the flrst and last relate what they had heard Christ 
say, or had seen him perform. Matthew wrote his 
gospel first in Judea ; then Mark in Italy ; Luke, the 
third, in Achaia; John, the last, in Asia." And 
again, " of all the evangelists, Luke, the third in order, 
is. reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek 
tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his gos- 
pel in Grreek." 

In Theophylact's preface to Matthew's gospel, it 
is said, '' There are four evangelists, two of whom, 
Matthew and John, were of the apostles ; the other 
* Book of Illustrious Men. 



CONCERNING LUKE'S GOSPEL. 177 

two, Mark and Luke, were of the number of the sev- 
enty. Mark was a disciple and companion of Peter ; 
Luke of Paul .... Luke wrote fifteen years after 
Christ's ascension." 

In his commentary on Luke he observes, " That it 
appears from Luke's Introduction, that he was not 
from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. 
For others were disciples from the beginning, as Peter, 
and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the 
things which they had seen or heard." 

EuTHYMius says, '' Luke was a native of Antioch, 
and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and, 
as some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as 
Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul. 
He wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen 
years after our Lord's ascension." 

EuTYCHius, patriarch of Constantinople, has handed 
down the following account: "In the time of the 
same emperor, (Nero) Luke wrote his gospel in Greek, 
to a notable and wise man of the Romans, whose name 
was Theophilus ; to whom also he wrote the Acts, or 
the history of the disciples. The evangelist Luke was 
a companion of the apostle Paul, going with him 
wherever he went. For which reason the apostle 
Paul, in one of his epistles, says, ' Luke the physician 
salutes you.' " 

The same arguments by which the canonical au- 
thority of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were 
established, apply with their full force to the gospel 
of Luke. It w^as universally received as canonical 
by the whole primitive church — has a place in every 
catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which 
was ever published — is constantly referred to and cited 



178 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS, &C, 

by the Fathers as a part of sacred Scripture — and 
was one of the books constantly read in the churches, 
as a part of the rule of faith and practice for all be- 
lievers. 

Marcion, the heretic, it is true, had a gospel ac- 
cording to Luke, which differed essentially from that 
in the Canon, but his authority has no weight. 



OBJECTIONS OF MICHAELIS. 179 



SECTION VII. 



THE OBJECTIONS OP J. D. MICHAELIS TO THE CANONICAL 
AUTHORITY OP THE GOSPELS OP MARK AND LUKE, CON- 
SIDERED AND ANSWERED. 

J. D. MiCHAELis, in his introduction to the New 
Testament, as translated from the German by Bishop 
Marsh, in the third section of the third chapter, 
speaking of the gospels of Mark and Luke, and of the 
Acts of the Apostles, and of the grounds of placing 
them in the Canon, says, " I must confess that I am 
unable to find a satisfactory proof of their inspiration, 
and the more I investigate the subject, and the oftener 
I compare their writings with those of Matthew and 
John, the greater are my doubts." He then goes on 
to say, that in a former edition of this work he had 
stated the arguments on both sides of the question, 
but although uncertain which he should prefer, yet he 
had rather inclined to the affirmative. But now he 
tells us, that he is strongly inclined to the negative. 

The first argument for the inspiration of these gos- 
pels, which the learned professor considers, is derived 
from the fact, that Mark and Luke were companions 
and assistants of the apostles. This, he says, can 
afford no proof of their inspirntion, even if it could be 
shown that they were endowed with the extraordinary 
gifts of the Holy Ghost, of which, however, there is 



180 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

no historical proof. Because a disciple might possess 
these gifts, and yet his writings not be inspired. 
And if we ground the argument for their inspiration 
on the character of an apostle's assistant, then we 
must receive as canonical the genuine epistle of Cle- 
ment of Rome, and the writings of other apostolical 
Fathers. 

The next argument which he considers is, that the 
apostles themselves have recommended these gospels 
as canonical in their epistles. That the passages 
depended on for proof, do refer to these or any other 
written gospels, the professor denies : but even if they 
did, he considers the evidence unsatisfactory ; for he 
supposes that they might have commended a book as 
containing genuine historical accounts, without vouch- 
ing for its inspiration. 

The testimony of the Fathers, that these gospels 
were approved by Peter and Paul respectively, and 
with Matthew's gospel were shown to the apostle 
John, the learned professor sets aside with very little 
ceremony. 

And, finally, he demurs, in regard to the evidence 
of the canonical authority of these books, derived from 
the testimony of the whole primitive church, by which 
they were undoubtedly received into the Canon ; and 
suggests, that the apostles might have recommended 
them and the primitive church have accepted them, 
as works indispensable to a Christian on account of 
the importance of their contents, and that by insensi- 
ble degrees they acquired the character of being in- 
spired. 

On these reasonings and objections against the inspi- 
ration and canonical authority of several important 



MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 181 

books, which have hitherto held an unquestioned place 
in the Canon of the New Testament, and coming from 
the pen of a man, too, of such extensive Biblical learn- 
ing, I think it necessary to detain the reader with 
some remarks, which I hope will have the effect of 
counteracting the pernicious influence of the opinions 
which have been exhibited above. 

1. In the first place, then, I would observe, that it 
will be admitted that Mark and Luke were humble, 
pious men ; also that they were intelligent, well in- 
formed men, and must have known that the commit- 
ting to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended 
in the gospel, was not left to the discretion or caprice 
of every disciple, but became the duty of those only 
who were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake 
the work. Now, if these two disciples had been unin- 
spired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles 
who possessed plenary inspiration, it would have 
argued great presumption in them, without any direc- 
tion, to write gospels for the instruction of the church. 
The very fact of their writing, is, therefore, a strong 
evidence that they believed themselves to be inspired. 
There is then little force in the remark of the learned 
professor, that neither Mark nor Luke have declared 
in any part of their writings that they were inspired ; 
for such a declaration was unnecessary ; their conduct 
in undertaking to write such books, is the best evi- 
dence that they believed themselves called to this 
w^ork. 

And the objection to this argument, from the wri- 
tings of other apostolical men, is not valid ; for none 
of them ever undertook to write gospels for the use 
of the church. All attempts at writing other gospels 
16 



182 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED. 

than the four were considered by the primitive 
church as impious ; because the writers were unin- 
spired men. 

2. But the universal reception of these books by the 
whole primitive church as canonical, and that while 
some of the apostles were living, is the evidence, which 
to my mind is conclusive, that they were not mere 
human productions, but compared by divine inspira- 
tion. That they were thus universally received, I 
think is manifest, from the testimonies which have 
already been adduced. There is not in all the wri- 
tings of antiquity a hint, that any Christian belonging 
to the church ever suspected that these gospels were 
inferior in authority to the others. No books in the 
Canon appear to have been received with more univer- 
sal consent, and to have been less disputed. They are 
contained in every catalogue which has come down to 
us. They are cited as Scripture by all that mention 
them ; and are expressly declared by the Fathers to 
be canonical and inspired books. 

Now, let it be remembered, that this is the best evi- 
dence which we can have that any of the books of the 
New Testament were written by inspiration. I know, 
indeed, that Michaelis places the whole proof of inspi- 
ration on the promise made by Christ to his apostles ; 
but while it is admitted that this is a weighty conside- 
ration, it does not appear to be equal in force to 
the testimony of the universal church, including the 
apostles themselves, that these writings were penned 
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ; for it is not 
perfectly clear, that the promise referred to was con- 
fined to the twelve. Certainly Paul, who was not of 
that number, was inspired in a plenary manner, and 



MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 183 

much the larger part of the twelve never wrote any- 
thing for the Canon. There is nothing in the New 
Testament which forbids our supposing, that other 
disciples might have been selected to write for the use 
of the church. We do not wish that this should be 
believed, in regard to any persons without evidence ; 
but we think that the proof exists, and arises from the 
undeniable fact, that the writings of these two men 
were from the beginning received as inspired. And 
this belief must have prevailed before the death of the 
apostles ; for all the testimonies concur in stating, that 
the gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of 
Luke by Paul, and approved by them respectively. 
Now, is it credible, that these apostles, and John who 
survived them many years, would have recommended 
to the Christian church the productions of uninspired 
men? 

No doubt all the churches at that time looked up to 
the apostles for guidance in all matters that related to 
the rule of their faith ; and a general opinion that 
these gospels were canonical could not have obtained 
without their concurrence. The hypothesis of Michaelis, 
that they were recommended as useful human produc- 
tions, and by degrees came to be considered as inspired 
writings is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all 
the testimony which has come down to us on the sub- 
ject. If this had been the fact, they would never 
have been placed among the books universally ac- 
knowledged, but would have been doubted of, or dis- 
puted by some. The difference made between inspired 
books, and others in those primitive times, was as great 
as at any subsequent period; and the line of distinc- 
tion was not only broad, but great pains were taken to 



184 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

have it drawn accurately ; and when the common opin- 
ion of the church respecting the gospels was formed, 
there was no difficulty in coming to the certain know- 
ledge of the truth. For thirty years and more before 
the death of the apostle John these two gospels were 
in circulation. 

If any doubt had existed respecting their canonical 
authority, would not the churches and their Elders 
have had recourse to this infallible authority ? The 
general agreement of all Christians over the whole 
world, respecting most of the books of the New Testa- 
ment, doubtless, should be attributed to the authority 
of the apostles. If, then, these gospels had been mere 
human productions they might have been read pri- 
vately, but never could have found a place in the 
sacred Canon. The objection to these books comes 
entirely too late to be entitled to any weight. The 
opinion of a modern critic, however learned, is of small 
consideration when opposed to the testimony of the 
whole primitive church, and to the suffrage of the uni- 
versal church in every age since the days of the 
apostles. The rule of the learned Huet already cited 
is sound, viz. ^'That all those books should be deemed 
canonical and inspired, which were received as such 
by those who lived nearest to the time when they were 
published." 

3. But if we should for the sake of argument con- 
cede that no books should be considered as inspired, 
but such as were the productions of apostles, still these 
gospels would not be excluded from the Canon. It is 
a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among 
the Fathers, that Mark wrote his gospel from the 
mouth of Peter ; that is, he wrote down what he had 



MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWEEED. 185 

heard tliis apostle every day declaring in his public 
ministry. And Luke did the same in regard to Paul's 
preaching. These gospels, therefore, may, according 
to this testimony, be considered as more probably be- 
longing to these two apostles, than to the evangelists 
■who penned them. They were little more it would 
seem, if we give full credit to the testimony which has 
been exhibited, than amanuenses to the apostles on 
whom they attended. Paul we know dictated several 
of his Epistles to some of his companions ; and if 
Mark and Luke heard the gospel from Peter and Paul 
so often repeated, that they were perfect masters of 
their respective narratives, and then committed the 
same to vrriting, are they not virtually the productions 
of these apostles which have been handed down to us ? 
And this was so much the opinion of some of the 
Fathers, that they speak of Mark's gospel as Peter's, 
and of Luke's as Paul's. 

But this is not all. These gospels were shown to 
these apostles and received their approbation. Thus 
speak the ancients as with one voice ; and if they had 
been silent, we might be certain from the circumstances 
of the case, that these evangelists would never have 
ventured to take such an important step as to write 
and publish the preaching of these inspired men, with- 
out their express approbation. Now let it be con- 
sidered, that a narrative prepared by a man well 
acquainted with the facts related, may be entirely 
correct without inspiration ; but of this we cannot be 
sure, and therefore it is of great importance to have 
a history of facts from men who were rendered in- 
fallible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It 
should be remembered, however, that the only advan- 
16* 



186 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

tage of inspiration in giving such a narrative, consists 
in the proper selection of facts and circumstances, and 
in the infallible certainty of the writing. Suppose, 
then, that an uninspired man should prepare an account 
of such transactions as he had seen or heard from eye- 
witnesses of undoubted veracity, and that his narrative 
should be submitted to the inspection of an apostle, 
and receive his full approbation; might not such a 
book be considered as inspired ? If in the original com- 
position there should have crept in some errors, (for to 
err is human,) the inspired reviewer would of course 
point them out and have them corrected ; now, such a 
book would be for all important purposes an inspired 
volume ; and would deserve a place in the Canon of 
Holy Scripture. If any credit then is due to the tes- 
timony of the Christians Fathers, the gospels of Mark 
and Luke are canonical books; for, as was before 
stated, there is a general concurrence among them, 
that these evangelists submitted their works to the 
inpection, and received the approbation of the apostles 
Peter and Paul. 

4. Finally, the internal evidence is as strong in 
favour of the gospels under consideration, as of any 
other books of the New Testament. There is no 
reason to think that Mark and Luke were capable of 
writing with such perfect simplicity and propriety 
without the aid of inspiration, or the assistance of in- 
spired men. If we reject these books from the Canon, 
we must give up the argument derived from internal 
evidence for the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures 
altogether. It is true the learned professor whose 
opinions we arc opposing, has said, "The oftener I 
compare their writings (Mark's and Luke's) with those 



MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 187 

of Matthew and John, the greater are my doubts." 
And speaking in another place of Mark, he says, ^'In 
some immaterial instances he seems to have erred," 
and gives it as his opinion, " That they who under- 
take to reconcile Mark with Matthew, or to show that 
he is nowhere corrected by John, experience great 
difficulty, and have not seldom to resort to unnatural 
explanations." But the learned professor has not 
mentioned any particular cases of irreconcilable dis- 
crepancies between this evangelist and Matthew; nor 
does he indicate in what statements he is corrected by 
John. Until something of this kind is exhibited, 
general remarks of this sort are deserving of no con- 
sideration. 

To harmonize the evangelists has always been found 
a difficult task, but this does not prove that they con- 
tradict each other, or that their accounts are irrecon- 
cilable. Many things which, at first sight, appear 
contradictory, are found, upon closer examination, to 
be perfectly harmonious ; and if there be some things 
which commentators have been unable satisfactorily to 
reconcile, it is no more than what might be expected 
in narratives so concise, and in which a strict regard 
to chronological order did not enter into the plan of 
the writers. And if this objection be permitted to 
influence our judgment in this case, it will operate 
against the inspiration of the other evangelists as well 
as Mark ; but in our apprehension, when the discre- 
pancies are impartially considered, and all the circum- 
stances of the facts candidly and accurately weighed, 
there will be found no solid ground of objection to the 
inspiration of any of these gospels ; — certainly nothing 
which can counterbalance the strong evidence arising 



188 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 

from the style and spirit of tlie writers. In what re- 
spects these two evangelists fall short of the others, 
has never been shown ; upon the most thorough exami- 
nation and fair comparison of these inimitable pro- 
ductions, they appear to be all indited by the same 
Spirit, and to possess the same superiority to all human 
compositions. 

Compare these gospels with those which are acknow- 
ledged to have been written by uninspired men, and 
you will need no nice power of discrimination to see 
the difference ; the first appear in every respect worthy 
of God ; the last betray, in every page, the weakness 
of man. 

I beg leave here to use the words of an excellent 
writer, in a late work : '^ The gospel of Luke was 
always, from the very moment of its publication, 
received as inspired as wxll as authentic. It was pub- 
lished during the lives of John, Peter, and Paul, 
and was approved and sanctioned by them as in- 
spired ; and received as such by the churches, in con- 
formity to the Jewish Canon, which decided on the 
genuineness or spuriousness of the inspired books of 
their own church, by receiving him as a prophet, who 
was acknowledged as such by the testimony of an 
established prophet. On the same grounds Luke must 
be considered as a true evangelist; his gospel being 
dictated and approved by an apostle, of whose authority 
there can be no question. There is, likewise, sufficient 
evidence to warrant the conclusions of Whitby — that 
both Mark and Luke were of the number of the 
seventy, who had a commission from Christ to preach 
the gospel, not to the Jews only, but to the other na- 
tions — that the Holy Ghost fell on these among 



MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 189 

the numbers of the seventy, who formed a part of the 
hundred and twenty, assembled on the day of Pente- 
cost, and from that time they were guided by the 
influences of the Holy Spirit, in writing or preaching 
the gospel. And if the universal church, from the 
first ages, received this gospel as divinely inspired, 
on these satisfactory grounds, distance of time cannot 
weaken the evidences of truth, and we are required 
to receive it on the same testimony. That which satis- 
fied those who had much better means of judging, 
should certainly satisfy us at this time."* 

There is something reprehensible, not to say im- 
pious, in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which 
has led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in 
Germany, first to attack the authority of particular 
books of Scripture, and next to call in question the 
inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent this 
licentiousness of criticism has been carried, I need not 
say ; for it is a matter of notoriety, that of late the 
most dangerous enemies of the Bible have been found 
occupying the place of its advocates ; and the critical 
art which was intended for the correction of the text, 
and the interpretation of the sacred books, has, in a 
most unnatural way, been turned against the Bible ; 
and finally, the inspiration of all the sacred books has 
not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected hy 
Professors of Theology! And these men, while 
living on endowments which pious benevolence had 
consecrated for the support of religion, and openly 
connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox 
opinions, have so far forgotten their high responsibili- 
ties, and neglected the claims which the church had 
* New Testament, by the Rev. George Townsend. Vol. i. p. 5. 



190 GERMAN SCEPTICISM. 

on them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning 
to sap the foundation of that system which they were 
sworn to defend. They have had the shameless hardi- 
hood to send forth into the world, books under their 
own names, which contain fully as much of the poison 
of infidelity as ever distilled from the pens of the most 
malignant deists, whose writings have fallen as a curse 
upon the world. The only effectual security which we 
have against this new and most dangerous form of 
infidelity, is found in the spirit of the age, which is so 
superficial and cursory in its reading, that, however 
many elaborate critical works may be published in 
foreign languages, very few of them will be read, even 
by theological students, in this country. 

Even among those who profess to be orthodox in 
doctrine, a new and dangerous opinion of the nature 
and degree of inspiration possessed by the writers of 
the New Testament, has been broached. It is, that 
all true Christians as they possess the Holy Spirit, 
are, in a measure, inspired ; and that the inspiration 
of the apostles differed from that of other Christians 
only in degree. But that such plenary inspiration as 
precludes the possibility of error, was never granted 
to any man. 

According to this theory, inspiration differs not at 
all from that spiritual illumination which is granted to 
every true Christian. But this brings no new truths 
to light, and secures none from all error in his 
opinions, and in his manner of communicating them. 
It is a theory which destroys the certainty and infalli- 
bility of the rule of faith. For if the apostles were 
subject to error, every man when he finds anything in 
their writings which he dislikes, will be at liberty to 



GERMAN SCEPTICISM. 191 

suppose that the sacred writer has, in that particular, 
fallen into error. Unless the sacred Scriptures can 
be referred to as an infallible standard, their use is in 
a great measure destroyed. No inspiration but that 
which is infallible will at all answer the purpose for 
which the Bible was written. 



192 TITB GOSPEL OF JOHN. 



SECTION VIII, 



THE GOSPEL OF JOHN — LIFE OF THIS EVANGELIST — OCCA- 
SION AND TIME OF HIS WRITING CANONICAL AUTHORITY 

INDISPUTABLE. 

The fourth gospel was written by Jolin, the son of 
Zebedee and Salome, who was originally a fisherman 
of Galilee, and brother of James ; and, we may sup- 
pose, was the younger of the brothers, as he is gene- 
rally mentioned last, and is commonly reported to 
have been the youngest of all Christ's disciples. They 
were plain uneducated men, as their occupation suffi- 
ciently indicates. Probably they had been disciples 
of John the Baptist, and some have conjectured that 
John the Evangelist was one of the two to whom John 
the Baptist pointed out Jesus, and who went after him 
to his lodging. The other we know was Andrew, 
Simon Peter's brother ; and John, in other cases, has 
concealed his own name, where anything is mentioned 
which could be interpreted to his honour. 

Why these two brothers were surnamed Boanerges, 
by the Lord, does not clearly appear, unless we sup- 
pose that the names were prophetic of the manner of 
their preaching, when commissioned as apostles. But 
there are no facts recorded, from which any inference 
can be drawn in relation to this subject. John has 
been long celebrated for his affectionate temper, and 



LIFE OF JOHN. 193 

for the suavity of his manners, which appear very 
remarkably in all his writings ; but there is no evi- 
dence that he was naturally of a meek temper. The 
facts in the gospel history would seem to indicate that 
both he and his brother were of a fiery temper, and 
by nature very ambitious; and some have supposed 
that their surname had relation to this ardour of tem- 
per, — but this is not very probable. 

We know that John was the bosom friend of Jesus, 
the disciple whom he loved with a peculiar affection ; 
and that he was admitted to all those scenes of a very 
interesting nature, from which most of the other dis- 
ciples were excluded. 

It is also certain that he was present at the cruci- 
fixion; stood near the cross in company with Mary 
the mother of our Lord ; and that he remained at the 
place until the body of Jesus, now dead, was pierced 
with a spear. On the morning of the resurrection 
John visited the sepulchre, in company with Peter, 
and was present when Christ made his first appear- 
ance to the eleven ; and when he manifested himself 
to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias. After Pente- 
cost he was with Peter in the temple, when the lame 
man was healed; he accompanied Peter also to Sama- 
ria, and was present at the council of Jerusalem. 
From the book of Revelation we learn, that this 
evangelist was for a time an exile in the island of 
Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, ' where he was 
favoured with wonderful visions and communications 
from the Lord. 

It seems to have been intimated to him by his 
Lord, at the sea of Tiberias, that he should survive 
the destruction of Jerusalem ; for when Peter asked, 
IT 



194 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF JOHN. 

*' Lord, what shall this man do ? Jesus saith unto him, 
if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to 
thee ?" which saying gave rise to an opinion among 
the disciples that that disciple should not die : '^ Yet 
Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die ; but if I will 
that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" And 
this accords very well with the testimonies of the 
ancients, who inform us that John lived to a great 
age. 

Ieen^us, in two places of his work against Here- 
tics, says, "That John lived to the time of Trajan," 
which will bring us down to A. D. 98. Eusebius 
understands Clement of Alexandria to say the same 
thing. Oeigen also testifies, " That John having 
lived long in Asia was buried at Ephesus." Poly- 
crates, who wrote in the second century, and was 
bishop of Ephesus, asserts, " That John was buried in 
that city." 

Jerome, in his book of Illustrious Men, and in his 
work against Jovinian, says, " That the apostle John 
lived in Asia to the time of Trajan ; and dying at a 
great age, in the sixty-eighth year of our Lord's pas- 
sion, was buried near the city of Ephesus." This 
account would bring down the death of John to A. D. 
100, in which year it is placed by this writer in his 
Chronicon. The testimonies for the genuineness of 
the gospel of John are as full and satisfactory as 
could be desired. 

Iren^us tells us, " That the evangelist John de- 
signed, by his gospel, to confute the errors which 
Cerinthus had infused into the minds of the people, 
and had been infused by those who were called 
Nicolaitons; and to convince them that there was 



CANONICAL AUTHOEITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 195 

one God, who made all things by his Word ; and not, 
as they imagined, one who was the Creator, and an- 
other who was the Father of our Lord ; one who was the 
Son of the Creator, and another who was the Christ, 
who continued impassible, and descended upon Jesus, 
the Son of the Creator." 

Jerome fully confirms this testimony of Irenseus, 
and says, " That when St. John was in Asia, where 
there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and 
others, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh — 
that is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in his 
Epistle, calls Antichrists, and St. Paul frequently con- 
demns in his Epistles — he was forced by almost all 
the bishops of Asia, and the deputations of many 
other churches, to write more plainly concerning the 
divinity of our Saviour, and to soar aloft in a dis- 
course on the Word, not more bold than happy." 

"It is related in ecclesiastical history, that John, 
when solicited by the brethren to write, answered, that 
he would not do it unless a public day of fasting and 
prayer was appointed to implore God's assistance ; 
which being done, and the solemnity being honoured 
with a satisfactory revelation from God, he broke forth 
into these words, In the beginning was the Word,'' ^o. 

Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men, says, ''John 
wrote a gospel at the desire of the bishops of Asia, 
against Cerinthus, and other heretics, especially the 
doctrines of the Ebionites, then springing up, who say 
that Christ did not exist before the birth of Mary : for 
which reason he was obliged to declare his divine na- 
tivity. Another reason of his writing is also men- 
tioned, which is, that after having read the volumes 
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he expressed his appro- 



196 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 

bation of their history as true : but observed, that 
they bad recorded an account of but one year of our 
Lord's ministry, even the last after the imprisonment 
of John, (the Baptist) in which also he suffered. 
Omitting therefore that year, (in a great measure) the 
history of which had been written by the other three, 
he related the acts of the preceding time, before John 
was shut up in prison, as may appear to those who 
read the four evangelists, which may serve to account 
for the seeming difference between John and the rest." 

Augustine, in conformity with the account of 
Jerome, says, " That this evangelist wrote concerning 
the co-eternal divinity of Christ against heretics." 
Lampe has called in question these early testimonies 
respecting the occasion of writing this gospel, and has 
attempted to prove by argument that John had no 
view to any particular heretics, in the commencement 
of his gospel. Lardnee has taken the same side, and 
adduces several arguments in favour of Lampe's opi- 
nion. TiTMAN adopts the same opinion. But the proba- 
ble reasonings of ingenious men when opposed to such a 
weight of ancient testimony, in relation to a matter of 
fact Avhich occurred at no long distance before their 
time, deserve very little consideration. And, indeed, 
after reading Lardner's arguments, I must say that 
they appear to me to have no high degree of plausi- 
bility. 

That Cerinthus lived in the time of the apostle 
John, and was known to him, is evident from another 
testimony of iRENiEUS, which has been often quoted. 
It is a story which, he says, some persons in his time 
had from Polycarp, the disciple of John ; which is 
as follows : " John going to a certain bath at Ephesus, 



CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 197 

and perceiving that Cerinthus, that noted arch-heretic, 
was in the bath, immediately leaped out, and said. 
Let us go home lest the bath should fall down upon 
us, having in it such a heretic as Cerinthus, that enemy 
of truth." 

For the testimony of Irenseus see remarks on the 
gospel of Matthew. To which we may here add the 
fanciful reason given by Irenseus why the number of 
gospels was four, and no more nor less. "" Nor can 
there be more or fewer gospels than these. For as 
there are four regions of the world in which we live, 
and four cardinal winds, and the church is spread 
over all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and sup- 
port of the church, and the breath of life, in like man- 
ner it is fit it should have four pillars, breathing on all 
sides incorruption and refreshing mankind, whence it 
is manifest that the Logos, the maker of all things, 
who sits upon the cherubim, and holds together all 
things, having appeared to men, has given us a gospel 
four-fold in its form, but held together by one Spirit."* 

In another part of this work this Father gives char- 
acteristics of this gospel, thus — 

*' The gospel according to John declares his princely, 
complete, and glorious generation from the Father, 
saying, ' In the beginning was the Logos, and the 
Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.' "f 

Augustine, moreover, asserts, " That John is the 
last of the evangelists." Chrysostom supposes, that 
John did not write his gospel till after the destruction 
of Jerusalem. Paulinus says, " It had been handed 
down by tradition, that John survived all the other 
apostles, and wrote the last of the four evangelists, 
* Iren. Cod. Her. lib. iii. c. 11. f Ibid. 

17* 



198 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 

and so as to confirm their most certain history." 
Again, he observes, " That in the beginning of John's 
gospel all heretics are confuted." 

CoSMAS of Alexandria, informs us, " That when 
John dwelt at Ephesus, there were delivered to him 
bj the faithful the writings of the other three evan- 
gelists. Receiving them, he said, that what they had 
written was well written ; but some things were omit- 
ted by them which were needful to be related. And 
being desired by the faithful, he also published his 
writing, as a kind of supplement to the rest." 

Isidore of Seville, says, " That John wrote the last 
in Asia." Theophylact computed that John wrote 
about two and thirty years after Christ's ascension. 
EuTHYMius says, " That this gospel was not written 
until long after the destruction of Jerusalem." Ni- 
CEPHORUS, " That John wrote last of all, about six and 
thirty years after our Lord's ascension to heaven." 
Having exhibited the testimonies of the ancients, it 
may not be amiss to set down the opinions of some of 
the moderns, relative to the time when this gospel was 
written. 

Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, Jones, and many 
others, agree that John wrote his gospel about the year 
of our Lord 97. Wetstein thinks it might have been 
written about thirty-two years after the ascension. 
Basnage and Lampe are inclined to believe that it 
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Whiston and Lardner adopt the same opinion. The 
gospel of John is cited by Clement of Rome ; by 
Barnabas ; by Ignatius ; by Theophilus of Anti- 
och ; by iRENiEUS ; and by Clement of Alexandria, 
in more than forty instances. And by all_ those wri- 



tatian's diatessaron. 199 

ters who lived with, or immediately after the apostles, 
this gospel is appealed to as inspired Scripture ; and 
the same is the fact in regard to Origbn, Jerome 
Augustine, and all the Fathers, who came after this 
period. Nearly the whole of this gospel could be made 
up from citations of the writers of the first four centu- 
ries. It w^as never excluded from any church, or any 
catalogue of the books of the New Testament, and 
therefore possesses every evidence of being canonical, 
which any reasonable man could demand. 

That the number of genuine gospels was four and 
no more, is evident from the testimony of all the Fa- 
thers who have spoken of them ; and especially from 
the fanciful reason assigned by Irenaeus to prove that 
there could be no more nor fewer. The same is mani- 
fest from the fact that Tatian, a learned disciple of 
Justin, who afterwards became the founder of a sect 
of ascetics, out of the four gospels formed a volume 
called Diatessaron."^ In this, however, he left out 
such things as did not suit his views. But the exist- 
ence of such a book which is attested by Irenaeus, Eu- 
sebius, Jerome and Theodoret, shows that the num- 
ber of gospels commonly received by heretics, as well 
as catholics, was four and no more. The same might 
be proved from the writings of Julian the apostate. 

* Harmony of the four gospels. 



200 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 



SECTION IX. 



THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES LUKE THE AUTHOR CA- 
NONICAL AUTHORITY UNDISPUTED BY THE FATHERS 

REJECTED ONLY BY HERETICS. 

That tlie Acts of the Apostles is tlie writing of 
Luke the evangelist, is manifest from the dedication 
to Theophilus, in which reference is made to his gos- 
pel, which was first written. And it is also evident 
from the uniform testimony of all antiquity ; the fact 
never having been once questioned by any member of 
the catholic church. All that has been argued in vin- 
dication of the inspiration and canonical authority of 
Luke's gospel, is applicable to the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, and need not be here repeated. 

But it is pleasant to read the explicit testimonies of 
the Fathers to the sacred books of the New Testa- 
ment : I will, therefore, bring forward the most im- 
portant. 

Iren^us repeatedly cites passages from this book, 
saying, " Luke, the disciple and follower of Paul, says 
thus." " Luke, the inseparable companion and fellow 
labourer of Paul, wrote thus." He takes particular 
notice of Luke's using the first person plural, ^'we 
endeavoured — we came — we went — we sat down — 
we spoke," &c. ; and enters into some discussion 



LUKE THE AUTHOR OF THE ACTS. 201 

to prove " Luke's fitness for writing a just and true 
history." 

In another place lie shows, " That Luke's Acts of 
the Apostles ought to be equally received with his 
gospel ; for that in them he has carefully delivered 
to us the truth, and given to us a sure rule for sal- 
vation." Again he says, "Paul's account of his 
going to Jerusalem exactly agrees with Luke's in 
the Acts." 

Clemens Alexandrinus citing Paul's speech at 
Athens, introduces it thus, " So Luke in the Acts of 
the Apostles relates." Tertullian cites several 
passages out of the Acts of the Apostles which he calls, 
"■ Commentarius Luces, The Commentary of Luke." 
Origen ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. 
Eusebius says, " Luke has left us two inspired 
volumes, The Gospel and The Acts." Jerome ex- 
pressly asserts, " That the Acts was the composition 
of Luke." The Syriac Version of the New Testa- 
ment ascribes the Acts to Luke ; and in some very 
ancient manuscripts of the New Testament his name 
is prefixed to this book. 

To this uniform body of ancient testimony there is 
nothing which can be objected, except that the author 
of the Synopsis, commonly ascribed to Athanasius, 
says, " Peter dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but 
Luke wrote them." But if this were true it would not 
in the least detract from the authority of the book, 
but rather increase it. One testimony, however, can 
be of no avail against so many ; and we know that 
Luke knew most of the facts recorded in this book by 
his own personal observation, and needed no one to 
dictate them to him. Besides, Peter was not an eye- 



202 THE ACTS CANONICAL. 

witness of the greater number of the facts related in 
this book. 

The time when the Acts of the Apostles was written 
may be determined pretty accurately, by the time 
when the history which it contains terminates ; that is 
about A. D. 62 ; for no doubt he began to write soon 
after he left Rome. 

That the Acts of the Apostles is of canonical autho- 
rity, is proved from its having a place in all the ancient 
catalogues of the books of the New Testament. The 
same is evinced by the numerous citations from this 
book by the early Fathers, who explicitly appeal to 
it as of divine authority — as an inspired book. It is 
plainly referred to in more instances than one by Cle- 
ment of Rome, the fellow-labourer of Paul. Poly- 
CAKP the disciple of John also cites a passage from the 
Acts, in his Epistle to the Philippians. It is cited by 
Justin Martyr in his Exhortation to the Greeks. It 
is distinctly cited by Iren^us more than thirty times, 
in some of which instances it is expressly called Scrip- 
ture ; and the credit and authority of the book are 
largely discussed in his work against heretics. 

The citations of Tertullian from this book are 
too numerous to be particularized. He also quotes it 
expressly under the name of Scripture ; " Which part 
of Scripture," says he, " they who do not receive, 
must deny the descent of the Holy Ghost, and be igno- 
rant of the infant state of the Christian church."* 

This book was also constantly read as Scripture 
in the weekly assemblies of Christians all over the 
world. 

From the testimonies adduced above it will appear, 

* De Praescriptione. 



THE ACTS CANONICAL. 203 

•with convincing evidence, how unfounded is the opinion 
of some learned men, that the Acts in the early period 
of the church was very little known comparatively, and 
very little esteemed. This opinion has been favoured 
by such men as Father Simon and Dr. Mill ; and has 
no other foundation than a passage in the Prolegomena 
to the Acts, ascribed to Chrysostom, the genuineness 
of which is very doubtful. But if Chrysostom was 
the author of this passage, how little can it weigh 
against such a host of witnesses ? The passage referred 
to is, "This book is not so much as known to many ; 
they know neither the book nor by whom it was 
written." Now the same might be asserted respecting 
all the books in the Canon. There are many persons 
ignorant of what they contain and unacquainted with 
their object. But there is no need to dwell longer on 
this objection. 

The Acts of the Apostles, therefore, has an indis- 
putable claim to a place in the sacred Canon. No 
better or stronger evidence can be desired. It is true 
that some of the earliest heretics did not receive this 
book as canonical. Tertullian informs us that it 
was rejected by Cerdo, the master of Marcion, and 
some others whom he does not name, but whom he 
refutes. 

Philastrius informs us that the Corinthians did 
not receive this book. And Augustine tells us, that 
the Manichees did not, because they considered Manes 
to be the Paraclete, promised by the Saviour ; but in 
the Acts, it is declared to have been the Holy Ghost 
which descended on the apostles on the day of 
Pentecost. 



204 THE ACTS CANONICAL. 

"But," says Father Simon, "let ns leave these 
enthusiasts, who had no other reason for rejecting the 
books received by the whole church, except that they 
did not suit with the idea which they had formed of 
the Christian religion." 



EPISTLES OE PAUL. 205 



SECTION X. 



TESTIMONIES TO THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE 
FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL. 

On tlie subject of Paul's epistles, there is a universal 
consent among the ancients, except as it relates to the 
epistle to the Hebrews ; which having been published 
without the apostle's name and usual salutation, many 
conjectured that it was the production of another per- 
son ; and while some ascribed it to Barnabas, others 
thought that either Clement or Luke was the writer. 
There seems to have been a difference between the 
eastern and western churches on this subject ; for the 
Greeks appear to have entertained no doubts in regard 
to Paul's being the author of this epistle : it was only 
among the Latins that its genuineness was a matter 
of uncertainty. And the most learned among these 
adopted the opinion, that it was the production of 
Paul ; and by degrees its authority was fully estab- 
lished in the west as well as the east. The true state 
of the case will, however, appear more clearly by citing 
the testimonies of the Fathers, than by any general 
representation. 

Although Clement, the fellow-labourer of Paul, 
frequently cites passages from the gospels and epistles, 

yet he never expressly mentions any book of the New 

18 



206 EPISTLES OF PAUL. 

Testament, except Paul's first epistle to the Corin- 
thians ; to whom also Clement's epistle was addressed. 
His words are, " Take into your hands the epistle of 
blessed Paul the apostle. What did he at first write 
to you in the beginning of the gospel ? Verily he did 
by the Spirit admonish you concerning himself, and 
Cephas and Apollos, because that even then you did 
form parties." There are in this epistle of Clement 
many other passages in which the words of Paul are 
cited, but this is the only one in which his name is 
mentioned. 

Hermas and Ignatius also often quote the words 
of Paul's epistles, but the books from which they are 
taken are not designated. 

PoLYCARP, the disciple of the apostle John and 
bishop of Smyrna, who suffered martyrdom in extreme 
old age, about the middle of the second century, after 
sentence of death was pronounced upon him, wrote an 
epistle to the Philippians, in which he makes express 
mention of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians — 
*'Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the 
world, as Paul teaches?" See 1 Cor. vi. 2. 

He also quotes a passage from the epistle to the 
Ephesians, under the name of Holy Scripture. " For 
I trust," says he, "that ye are well exercised in the 
Holy Scripture — as in these Scriptures it is said, *Be 
ye angry and sin not : let not the sun go down upon 
your wrath.' " Ephes. iv. 26. Polycarp also cites 
passages from the second epistle to the Corinthians ; 
from the epistle to the Galatians ; from the first and 
second to the Thessalonians ; from the epistle to the 
Hebrews ; and from both the epistles to Timothy ; but, 
as is usual with the apostolical Fathers, he does not 



QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 207 

refer to the books or authors from which he makes his 

citations. 

Justin Martyr quotes many passages in the very 
words of Paul, without mentioning his name. But 
Iren^uS distinctly and frequently quotes thirteen of 
Paul's epistles. He takes nothing, indeed, from the 
short epistle to Philemon, which can easily be ac- 
counted for by the brevity of this letter, and the 
special object which the apostle had in view m pen- 
ning it. 

It would fill a large space to put down all the 
passages cited by Irenaeus from the epistles of Paul. 
Let it suffice to give one from each as quoted in his 
work "Against Heresies." — "This same thing Paul 
has explained writing to the Romans, '• Paul an apostle 
of Jesus Christ, separated to the gospel of God.' Rom. 
i. 1. And again writing to the Romans concerning 
Israel, he says, * Whose are the fathers and of whom 
concerning the flesh, Christ came who is God over all, 
blessed for evermore.' " Rom. ix. 5. "This also Paul 
manifestly shows in his epistle to the Corinthians, 
saying, ' Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye 
should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under 
the cloud.' 1 Cor. x. 1. Paul in his second epistle to 
the Corinthians, says, ' In whom the God of this world 
hath blinded the eyes of them that believe not.' " 2 
Cor. iv. 4. "The apostle Paul says, in his epistle to 
the Galatians, 'AVherefore then serveth the law of 
works ? It was added until the seed should come to 
whom the promise was made.' " Gal. iii. 10. " As 
also the blessed Paul says, in his epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, ' For we are members of his body, of his flesh, 
and of his bones.' " Eph. v. 30. "As also Paul says 



208 QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 

to the Philippians, ^I am full, having received of 
Epapliroditus, the things which were sent from you, 
an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well 
pleasing to God.' " Phil. iv. 13. "Again Paul says, 
in his epistle to the Colossians, ' Luke the beloved 
physician saluteth you.' " Col. iv. 14. "The apostle 
in the first epistle to the Thessalonians, says, ' And 
the God of peace sanctify you wholly.' " 1 Thess. v. 23. 
"And again, in the second epistle to the Thessalo- 
nians, speaking of Antichrist, he says, 'And then 
shall that wicked one be revealed.'" 2 Thess. ii. 8. 
In the beginning of his work against heresies, he says, 
" Whereas some having rejected the truth, bringing in 
lying words, and ' vain genealogies, rather than godly 
edifying, which is in faith,' 1 Tim. i. 4, as saith the 
apostle." This epistle is often quoted by Irenseus, in 
the work above mentioned. Speaking of Linus bishop 
of Rome, he says, " Of this Linus, Paul makes men- 
tion in his epistle to Timothy, ' Eubulus greeteth thee, 
and Pudens, and Linus.' " 2 Tim. iv. 21. " As Paul 
says, ' A man that is an heretic after the first and 
second admonition, reject.' " Tit. iii. 10. Thus, we 
have seen that Ieen^us who lived in the age imme- 
diately succeeding that in which Paul lived and wrote, 
has borne explicit testimony to all the epistles of that 
apostle which have his name prefixed, except the short 
epistle to Philemon, from which it is probable he had 
no occasion to take any authorities, as it is very con- 
cise, and addressed to a friend on a particular subject 
in which Paul felt deeply interested. 

As to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is anony- 
mous, there is ample evidence that Iren^us was 
acquainted with it; but it is doubtful whether he 



QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 209 

esteemed it to be the production of Paul, or some 
other person. As he resided in France, it is very 
possible that he participated in the prejudice of the 
western church on this point. Eusebius informs us, 
that he had seen a work of Iren^eus which has not 
reached our times, in which he cites passages from the 
epistle to the Hebrews ; but he does not say that he 
quoted them as Paul's. And in his works, which are 
still extant, there are several passages cited from this 
epistle, but without direct reference to the source 
whence they were derived. 

Athenagoras quotes from several of Paul's epis- 
tles ; but, as has been seen to be the custom of the 
early Fathers, he commonly uses the words, without 
informing the reader, from what author they were 
borrowed. There is, however, a passage in which 
he refers to both the first and second epistles to the 
Corinthians, as being the production of the apostle 
Paul. "It is manifest, therefore," says he, "that 
according to the apostle, ' this corruptible and dissi- 
pated must put on incorruption, that the dead being 
raised up, and the separated and even consumed parts 
being again united, every one may receive justly, the 
things he hath done in the body, whether they be 
good or bad.' " 1 Cor. xv. 54 ; 2 Cor. v. 10. 

Clement, of Alexandria, abounds in quotations 
from Paul's epistles ; a few of which will be sufficient 
for our purpose. " The apostle, in the epistle to the 
Romans, says, ' Behold, therefore, the goodness and 
severity of God.'" "The blessed Paul, in the first 
epistle to the Corinthians, says, ^ Brethren, be not 
children in understanding ; howbeit, in malice, be ye 
children, but in understanding be ye men.' " 1 Cor. 
18* 



210 QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 

xiv. 20. He has also many quotations from the 
second to the Corinthians — "The apostle," says he, 
" calls the common doctrine of the faith, ' a savour 
of knowledge,' in the second to the Corinthians." 
2 Cor. ii. 14. '' Hence, also, Paul says, ' Having 
these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse our 
hearts from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per- 
fecting holiness, in the fear of God.' " 2 Cor. vii. 1. 
"Whereupon Paul, also writing to the Galatians, 
says, ' My little children, of whom I travail in birth 
again until Christ be formed in you.' " Gal. iv. 19. 
"Whereupon the blessed apostle says, 'I testify in 
the Lord that ye walk not as other Gentiles walk.' 
Eph. iv. 17, 18. Again, ' submitting yourselves one 
to another in the fear of God.' " Eph. v. 21. He 
quotes part of the first and second chapters of the 
epistle to the Philippians expressly; and in another 
place he quotes the same epistle, after this manner : 
" The apostle of the Lord also exhorting the Mace- 
donians, says, ' the Lord is at hand, take heed that we 
be not found empty.' " Philip, iv. 5. 

Clement also quotes the epistle to the Colossians, 
and the epistles to the Thessalonians. From the first 
epistle to Timothy he cites this passage, " Timothy, 
keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding 
profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, 
falsely so called, which some professing, have erred 
concerning the faith." 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. On which 
he observes, "Heretics confuted by this saying, reject 
both epistles to Timothy." The epistle to Titus is 
also quoted several times ; and he remarks, in one 
place, " that Paul had cited Epimenides, the Cretan, 
in his epistle to Titus, after this manner, ' One of 



QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 211 

themselves, a poet of their own, said, the Cretans are 
always liars.' " Tit. i. 12, 13. The epistle to the 
Hebrews is also distinctly quoted, and is ascribed to 
Paul as its author. " Wherefore, writing to the He- 
brews, who were declining from the faith to the law, 
Paul says, ' Have ye need that any teach you again, 
^Yhich be the first principles of the oracles of God, and 
are become such, as have need of milk, and not of 
strong meat.' " Heb. v. 12. 

Terttjllian frequently, and expressly quotes most 
of Paul's epistles. In one place he says, " I will, 
therefore, by no means say, God, nor Lord, but I will 
follow the apostles ; so that if the Father and the Son 
are mentioned together, I will say, God the Father, 
and Jesus Christ the Lord. But when I mention 
Christ only, I will call him God, as the apostle 
does, ' Of whom Christ came, who is over all, God 
blessed for ever.'" Rom. ix. 5. "Paul, in his first 
epistle to the Corinthians, speaks of those who 
doubted, or denied the resurrection." In his Treatise 
on Monogamy, he computes that it was about one 
hundred and sixty years from Paul's writing this 
epistle, to the time when he wrote. " In the second 
epistle to the Corinthianfe, they suppose the apostle 
Paul to have forgiven the same fornicator, who in the 
first, he declared, ought to be delivered to Satan for 
the destruction of the flesh." "But of this, no more 
need be said, if it be the same Paul, who, writing to 
the Galatians, reckons heresy among the works of the 
flesh; and who directs Titus to reject a man that is a 
heretic, after the first admonition, ' knowing that he 
that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned 
of himself.'" "I pass," says he, "to another 



212 QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 

epistle, which we have inscribed to the Ephesians ; 
but the heretics, to the Laodiceans." Again, "Ac- 
cording to the true testimony of the church, we sup- 
pose this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians, 
and not to the Laodiceans ; but Marcion has endea- 
voured to alter this inscription, upon pretence of hav- 
ing made a more diligent search into this matter. 
But the inscriptions are of no importance, for the 
apostle wrote to all, when he wrote to some." 

Speaking of the Christian's hope, he says, " Of 
which hope and expectation, Paul to the Galatians 
says, ' For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of 
righteousness by faith.' He does not say we have 
obtained it, but he speaks of the hope of the righteous- 
ness of God in the day of judgment, when our reward 
shall be decided. Of which being in suspense, when 
he wrote to the Philippians, he said, ' If by any means, 
I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead ; not 
as though I had already attained, or were already 
perfect.' Phil. iii. 11, 12. The apostle, writing to 
the Colossians, expressly cautions against philosophy, 
' Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy 
and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and not 
after the instruction of the Spirit.' " Col. ii. 8. 
"And in the epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle 
adds, 'But of the times and the seasons, brethren, 
ye have no need that I -write unto you. For your- 
selves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord so 
cometh as a thief in the night.' " 1 Thess. v. 1 — 3. 
" And in his second epistle to the same persons, he 
writes with greater solicitude : ' But I beseech you, 
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
that ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled.' 



PAUL'S AUTOGRAPHY. 213 

2 Thess. ii. 1, 2. "And this word, Paul has used in 
writing to Timothy, ' Timothy, keep that which is 
committed to thy trust.' " 1 Tim. vi. 20. 

That remarkable passage of Tertullian, in which 
he is supposed to refer to the existing autographs of 
the epistles of Paul, although referred to already, may 
with propriety be here introduced. " Well," says he, 
" if you be willing to exercise your curiosity profit- 
ably, in the business of your salvation, visit the apos- 
tolical churches, in which the very chairs of the apos- 
tles still preside, in which their very authentic letters 
(aiitJienticsd literse) are recited, sending forth the 
voice, and representing the countenance of each one of 
them. Is Achaia near you ? You have Corinth. If 
you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi 
— you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, 
you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you 
have Rome, from whence also we may be easily satis- 
fied." 

There are three opinions respecting the meaning of 
this phrase authenticse literse ; authentic letters ; 
The first is, that it signifies the original manuscripts of 
the apostles — the autographs which were sent severally 
to the churches named, to all of which Paul addressed 
epistles. The second opinion is, that Tertullian meant 
to refer his readers to the original Greek of these epis- 
tles, which they had been accustomed to read in a 
Latin version. And the third is, that this phrase 
means well authenticated letters ; epistles which, by 
application to these churches, could be proved to be 
genuine writings of the apostles. 

Now, that the first of these is the true sense of Ter- 



214 PAUL'S AUTOGRAPHY. 

tullian's words, will, I think, appear very probable, if 
we consider, that if those autographs were preserved, 
even with common care, they would have been extant 
in the time of Tertullian, who reckons only 160 years 
from the time of Paul's writing to his own time. And 
again, unless he meant this, there is no reason why he 
should direct his readers only to those cities which had 
received epistles ; for doubtless many other churches, 
which might be more accessible, had authentic copies 
in the Greek language. Such copies undoubtedly ex- 
isted in Africa, where Tertullian lived. They need 
not, however, have been directed to go to Eome, or 
Corinth, or Ephesus, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, to 
see the epistles of Paul in Greek. Neither was it ne- 
cessary to take a journey to these cities to be fully 
convinced, that the letters which had been received by 
them were genuine ; for the evidence of this fact was 
not confined to these distinguished places, but was dif- 
fused all over the Christian world. 

From these considerations I conclude, that in Ter- 
tuUian's time these churches had in possession, and 
preserved with care, the identical epistles sent to them 
by Paul. This sense is confirmed by what he says, 
of their being able to hear the voice, and behold the 
countenance of the apostles, and see the very seats on 
which they had been accustomed to sit when they 
presided in the church. These seats were still occu- 
pied by the bishops, and seemed to preside, as they 
were venerable from having been once occupied by the 
apostles. 

Tertullian was acquainted with the epistle to the 
Hebrews, for he quotes several passages from the sixth 



TESTIMONY OF THEOPHILUS. 215 

chapter, but he ascribes it to Barnabas, and not to 
Paul. In this opinion, I believe, he is singular. 

Theophilus of Antioch quotes the following pas- 
sage from the epistle to the Romans, but seems to have 
quoted from memory, ^' He will search out all things, 
and will judge justly ; rendering to all according to 
the desert of their actions. To them that bj patient 
continuance in well-doing seek for immortality, he 
will give eternal life, joy, peace, rest, and many good 
things, which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, 
nor have entered into the heart of man. But to the 
unbelieving, and the despisers, and them that obey not 
the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath 
and indignation, tribulation and anguish ; and in a 
word, eternal fire shall be the portion of such." This 
passage is evidently taken from Bom. ii. 6 — 9, and 
as evidently cited from memory. It also contains a 
quotation from 1 Cor. ii. 9. 

This early and learned Father has also cited, in 
the same loose manner, passages from the epistles to 
the Ephesians — to the Philippians — to the Colossians 
— to Timothy — to Titus — and from the epistle to the 
Hebrews, but without naming the book from which the 
passages are taken ; which is in accordance with the 
practice of all the apostolic Fathers. 

The following passage is worthy of notice, not only 
because it contains an undoubted reference to the 
second epistle of Peter ; but because it shows what 
opinion was in that early age entertained of the inspi- 
ration of the sacred Scriptures : " But men of God, 
filled with the Holy Ghost, and becoming prophets, 
inspired by God himself, and being enlightened were 
taught of God, and were holy and righteous, wherefore 



216 TESTIMONY OP CLEMENT. 

they obtained the honour to become the organs of 
God."* 

Clement of Alexandria lived and wrote toward 
the close of the second century. After Pantsenus he 
was president of the Alexandrian school. Several of 
his works have come down to us, from which the fol- 
lowing citations from Paul's epistles are taken. " Be- 
hold, therefore," saith Paul, ''the goodness and seve- 
rity of God." Rom. xvi. 19. "The blessed Paul, in 
the first epistle to the Corinthians, says, ' Brethren, be 
not children in understanding, but in malice be ye 
children, but in understanding be ye men.' And he 
says, the apostle in the second epistle to the Corin- 
thians, calls the gospel " a savour of knowledge," 2 
Cor. xi. 14. " Again, Paul says, ' Having these pro- 
mises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all 
filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in 
the fear of God.' 2 Cor. vii. 1. He cites the follow- 
ing from the epistle to the Ephesians ; " As blessed Paul 
saith, ' Walk not as other Gentiles walk.' Ephes. vi. 
17, and ' submitting yourselves one to another in the 
fear of God." Eph. v. 21. He also cites the following 
words from the epistle to the Galatians, " My little 
children, of whom I travail in birth until Christ be 
formed in you." Gal. iv. 19. And from the Philip- 
pians, these words, " Not as though I had already at- 
tained or were already perfect," Phil. iii. 12. He also 
cites texts frequently from the epistles to the Colos- 
sians and Thessalonians, and always quotes them as 
written by Paul. From the first epistle to Timothy, 
vi. 20, he has the following, " Timothy, keep that 

* Theoph. ad Autolycum lib. ii. For other citations see Lard- 
ner, Vol. 1. 



origen's testimony. 217 

which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane bab- 
blings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called." 
He also refers to the second epistle to Timothy, and 
the epistle to Titus he quotes several times. It is sa- 
tisfactory to have the testimony of so early and so 
learned a Father in favour of the canonical authority 
of tlie epistle to the Hebrews, and of its having Paul 
as its author. " Blessed Paul, writing to such as were 
declining, says, ' Ye have need that one teach you again 
which be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are 
become such as have need of milk and not strong meat.' " 
Heb. v. 12. 

Ortgen quotes Paul's epistles, as expressly and 
frequently as is done by almost any modern writer. 
To transcribe all the passages cited by him, would be 
to put down a large portion of the writings of this 
apostle. A few instances will be sufficient. 

In one passage, in his work against Celsus, he men- 
tions several of Paul's epistles together, in the follow- 
ing manner — " Do you, first of all, explain the epistles 
of him who says these things, and having diligently 
read, and attended to the sense of the words there 
used, particularly in that to the Ephesians, to the 
Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Romans, 
&c." The epistle to the Ephesians is elsewhere 
quoted by Origen with the inscription which it now 
bears. 

After employing an argument founded on a passage 
quoted from the epistle to the Hebrews, he observes : 
''But possibly some one, pressed with this argument, 
will take refuge in the opinion of those who reject this 
epistle as not written by Paul. In answer to such 

we intend to write a distinct discourse, to prove this to 
19 



218 CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY. 

be an epistle of Paul." In his citations of this epistle, 
therefore, he constantly ascribes it to Paul in such ex- 
pressions as these, '' Paul, in his epistle to the He- 
brews," "In the epistle to the Hebrews, the same 
Paul says." 

But Origen not only expresses his own opinion on 
this subject, but asserts, that by the tradition received 
by the ancients it was ascribed to Paul. His words 
are, " For it is not without reason that the ancients 
have handed it down to us as Paul's." Now, when 
we take into view that Origen lived within one hun- 
dred years of the time of the apostles, and that he was 
a person of most extraordinary learning, and that he 
had travelled much through different countries, his 
testimony on this point is of great weight ; especially, 
since his opinion is founded on the testimony of the 
ancients, by whom he must mean the contemporaries 
of the apostles. At the same time, however, he men- 
tions, that some ascribed it to Luke, and others to Cle- 
ment of Rome. 

Cyprian often quotes the epistles of Paul. " Ac- 
cording," says he, " to what the blessed apostle wrote 
in his epistle to the Romans, ' Every one shall give 
account of himself to God, therefore, let us not judge 
one another.' " Rom. xiv. 12. In his first book of 
Testimonies, he says, " In the first epistle of Paul to 
the Corinthians, it is said, 'Moreover, brethren, I 
would not ye should be ignorant, how that all our fa- 
thers were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in 
the sea.' 1 Cor. x. 1. Likewise, in the second epistle 
to the Corinthians, it is written, ' Their minds were 
blinded unto this day.' 2 Cor. iii. 15. In like man- 
ner, blessed Paul, by the inspiration of the Lord, says, 



CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY. 219 

* Now he that mlnistereth seed to the sower, minister 
bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and 
increase the fruits of your righteousness, that ye may 
be enriched in all things.' 2 Cor. ix. 10. Likewise 
Paul to the Galatians says, ^When the fulness of 
time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a wo- 
man.' " Gal. iv. 4. 

Cyprian expressly quotes the epistle to the Ephe- 
sians under that title. "But the apostle Paul, speak- 
ing of the same thing more clearly and plainly, writes 
to the Ephesians, and says, ^ Christ loved the church, 
and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and 
cleanse it, with the washing of water.' Ephes. v. 25, 26. 
So also, Paul to the Philippians says, 'Who being ap- 
pointed in the form of God, did not earnestly affect to 
be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, 
taking on him the form of a servant ; and being made 
in the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a man, 
he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross.' Philip, ii. 6 — 8. In the 
epistle of Paul to the Colossians, it is written, ' Con- 
tinue in prayer, watching in the same.' Col. iv. 2. 
Likewise, the blessed apostle Paul, full of the Holy 
Ghost, sent to call and convert the Gentiles, warns and 
teaches, ' Beware lest any man spoil you through philo- 
sophy, &c.' " Col. ii. 8. He also quotes both the epistles 
to the Thessalonians. In his book of Testimonies he 
says, "If the apostle Paul writing to Timothy, said, 
'Let no man despise thy youth,' 1 Tim. iv. 12, much 
more may it be said of you and your colleagues, ' Let 
no man despise thy age.' " " Therefore the apostle 
writes to Timothy and exhorts, 'that a bishop should 
not strive, but be gentle, and apt to teach.' " 2 Tim. 



220 CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY. 

ii. 24. These two epistles are elsewhere quoted dis- 
tinctly, as the first and second to Timothy. He also 
quotes from the epistle to Titus, the passage, '^ A man 
that is an heretic after the first and second admoni- 
tion reject." Tit. iii. 10. 

Cyprian no where quotes the epistle to the He- 
brews. It is probable, therefore, that he, like some 
others of the Latin Fathers, did not believe it to be 
Paul's, or was doubtful respecting it. Neither does 
he cite the epistle to Philemon ; of this no other rea- 
son need be sought, but its contents and brevity. 
How many Christian authors have written volumes, 
without any citation of that epistle ! Yictorinus, 
who lived near the close of the third century, often 
quotes Paul's Epistles; and among the rest, he cites 
the epistle to the Hebrews, which he seems to have 
believed to be the production of Paul. Dionysius of 
Alexandria, also a contemporary of Origen, and a 
man of great learning, in the few fragments of his 
works which remain, often refers to Paul's Epistles. 
NovATUS, presbyter of the church of Rome, who 
flourished about the middle of the third century, ex- 
pressly cites from the epistle to the Romans, that 
famous testimony to Christ's divinity, so often quoted 
by the Fathers, "Whose are the fathers, of whom is 
Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God 
blessed for ever." And it deserves to be recollected, 
that although so many, beginning with Irenseus, have 
cited this passage, yet none of them appear to have 
thought the words capable of any other meaning, than 
the plain obvious sense, which strikes the reader at 
first. That it was a mere exclamation of praise, seems 
never to have entered their minds. Novatus also 



TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES. 221 

quotes tlie first and second epistles to the Corinthians, 
the epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to 
the Philippians. From this last epistle he cites these 
remarkable Avords: "Who being in the form of God," 
Phil. ii. 6, and interprets the folloAving clause in exact 
accordance with another of the Fathers, "did not ear- 
nestly seek to be like God, or to be equal with God." 
He quotes from the epistle to the Colossians these 
words : " Whether they be thrones, or dominions, or 
principalities, or powers, things visible and invisible, 
by him all things consist." Col. i. 16, 17. The epis- 
tles to Timothy and to Titus are also cited by this 
author. 

Methodius, who lived in the latter part of the 
third century, quotes Paul's epistle to the Romans, 
first and second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, 
to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, 
the first to the Thessalonians, and the first to Timothy. 
He has also taken several passages from the epistle to 
the Hebrews, and quotes it in such a manner, as to 
render it highly probable that he esteemed it to be a 
part of sacred Scripture, and ascribed it to Paul. 

EusEBius, the learned historian, undoubtedly re- 
ceived thirteen epistles of Paul as genuine ; and he 
seems to have entertained no doubt respecting the 
canonical authority of the epistle to the Hebrews ; 
but he sometimes expresses himself doubtfully of its 
author, while at other times he quotes it as Paul's, 
without any apparent hesitation. In speaking of the 
universally acknowledged epistle of Clement of Rome, 
he observes: "In which, inserting many sentiments of 
the epistle to the Hebrews, and also using some of 

the very w^ords of it, he plainly manifests that epistle 
19* 



222 TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES. 

to be no modern writing. And hence it has, not 
without reason, been reckoned among the other writ- 
ings of the apostle ; for Paul having written to the 
Hebrews in their own language, some think that the 
Evangelist Luke, others, that this very Clement tranS' 
lated it ; which last is the more probable of the two, 
there being a resemblance between the style of the 
epistle of Clement, and that to the Hebrews ; nor are 
the sentiments of these two writings very different." 
In his Ecclesiastical History, he speaks, ^' of the 
epistle to the Hebrews, and divers other epistles of 
Paul." And Theodoret positively asserts, that Euse- 
bius received this epistle as Paul's, and that he mani- 
fested that all the ancients, almost, were of the same 
opinion. It seems, from these facts, that in the time 
of Eusebius, the churches with which he was ac- 
quainted, did generally receive the epistle to the He- 
brews as the writing of Paul. 

Ambrose, bishop of Milan, received fourteen epistles 
of Paul. Jerome received as undoubted all Paul's 
epistles, except that to the Hebrews, concerning which 
he says in his letter to Evangelius, ^'That all the 
Greeks and some of the Latins received this epistle." 
And in his letter to Dardanus, "That it was not only 
received as Paul's by all the churches of the east, in 
his time, but by all the ecclesiastical writers in former 
times, though many ascribe it to Barnabas, or Cle- 
ment." He also says, "that it was daily read in the 
churches ; and if the Latins did not receive this epis- 
tle, as the Greeks rejected the Revelation of John, he 
received both ; not being so much influenced by pre- 
sent times, as by the judgment of ancient writers, who 
quote both ; and that not as they quote apocryphal 



TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES. 223 

books, and even heathen writings, but as canonical 
and ecclesiastical." 

Jerome, in speaking of the writings of Paul, gives 
the following very full and satisfactory testimony ; 
" He wrote," says he, " nine epistles to seven churches. 
To the Romans, one ; to the Corinthians, two ; to the 
Galatians, one ; to the Philippians, one ; to the Colos- 
sians, one ; to the Thessalonians, two ; to the Ephe- 
sians, one ; to Timothy, two ; to Titus, one ; to Phile- 
mon, one. But the epistle called to the Hebrews is 
not thought to be his, because of the difference of 
argument and style ; but rather Barnabas's, as Ter- 
tullian thought ; or Luke's, according to some others ; 
or Clement's, who was afterwards bishop of Rome ; 
who being much with Paul, clothed and adorned Paul's 
sense in his own language. Or if it be Paul's, he 
might decline putting his name to it in the inscription, 
for fear of offending the Jews. Moreover, he wrote as 
a Hebrew to the Hebrews, it being his own language ; 
whence it came to pass, that being translated, it has 
more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles. 
This they say is the reason of its differing from Paul's 
other writings. There is also an epistle to the Lao- 
diceans, but it is rejected by every body." Jerome 
commonly quotes the epistle to the Hebrews as the 
apostle Paul's ; and, as we have seen before, this was 
his prevailing opinion, which is not contradicted in the 
long passage just cited. 

Augustine received fourteen epistles of Paul, the 
last of which, in his catalogue, is the epistle to the 
Hebrews ; he was aware, however, that some in his 
time thought it of doubtful authority. "However," 
says he, "I am inclined to follow the opinion of the 



224 DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES. 

churches of the east, who receive it among the canoni- 
cal Scriptures." 

The time when each of these epistles was written 
cannot be ascertained with any exactness. It is not 
even agreed among the learned which was the first of 
Paul's epistles. Generally, indeed, it has been thought 
that the two epistles to the Thessalonians were com- 
posed earlier than the others ; but of late some 
learned men have given precedence to the epistle to 
the Galatians. And this opinion is not altogether 
confined to the moderns, for Tertullian mentions this 
epistle as among the first of Paul's writings. But 
the more common opinion is, that it was written dur- 
ing the long abode of this apostle at Corinth. Among 
the advocates of this opinion, we find L'Enfant, Beau- 
sobre, Lardner, &c., while Grotius, Capel, Witsius, and 
Wall, suppose that it was written at Ephesus. These 
last, together with Fabricius and Mill, place the date 
of the epistle to the Galatians, after that to the 
Romans. Macknight maintains that it was written 
from Antioch, after the Council of Jerusalem; and 
ofi'ers in support of his opinions several plausible argu- 
ments, which, if they do not prove all that he wishes, 
seem to render it probable that the time of this epistle 
being written was soon after the Council of Jerusalem. 
Semler, however, is of opinion that this epistle was 
written prior to the Council of Jerusalem. 

From these various opinions, it is sufiiciently evident 
that the precise date of the epistle to the Galatians 
cannot be ascertained. If we take the opinion of 
those who give the earliest date, the time of writing 
will not be later than A. D. 47. But if we receive as 
more probable the opinions of those who think that it 



DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES. 225 

was written after the Council of Jerusalem, we shall 
hring it down to the year 50 ; while, according to the 
opinion more commonly adopted, its date will be 
A. D. 52 or 53. And if we prefer the opinions of 
those who assign the latest date to this epistle, we 
shall bring it down several years later, and instead of 
giving it the first place, will give it the ninth or tenth. 

There seem to be better data for determining that 
the first epistle to the Thessalonians was written from 
Corinth, about the year 51 ; and the second epistle 
to the Thessalonians was probably written a few 
months afterwards from the same place. Michaelis 
and Dr. Hales unite in giving the next place in the 
order of time to the epistle to Titus. Lardner, how- 
ever, places it considerably later ; and Paley assigns 
to it a date later than any other author. On this 
subject there is little else than conjecture to guide 
us. The year in which this epistle was written, 
according to Michaelis and Hales, was 53 ; according 
to Lardner, 56 ; according to Barrington, 57 ; and 
according to Whitby, Pearson, and Paley, Q^, 

The epistle next in order is the first to the Corin- 
thians, the date of which can be determined with 
considerable precision from the epistle itself. "" I will 
tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.'' 1 Cor. xvi. 8. 
These words teach where this epistle was written, and 
by a comparison with other passages of Scripture, 
that it was penned near the close of Paul's long resi- 
dence at Ephesus, from which place he departed 
about A. D. 57. This then is the proper date of this 
epistle. 

The first epistle to Timothy will stand next, if we 
follow the opinion most commonly entertained by 



226 DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES. 

learned men; and its date will be A. D. 57 or 
A. J). 58. This opinion is supported by the authority 
of Athanasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Capellus, Blondel, 
Hammond, Grotius, Salmasius, Lightfoot, Benson, 
Barrington, Michaelis, Doddridge, and others. But 
Pearson, Bosenmuller, Macknight, Paley, Tomline, 
&c., place it as low as the year of our Lord 64 or Q5, 

The second epistle to the Corinthians was written 
probably about a year after the first, which will bring 
it to A. D. 58. 

In the same year it is thought that Paul wrote his 
very important epistle to the Romans. On this point, 
however, there is some diversity of opinion. But 
the epistle itself contains internal evidence that it was 
written at Corinth, when the apostle was preparing 
to take the contributions of the churches to Jerusalem. 

The date of the epistles to the Ephesians, to the 
Philippians, and to the Colossians, can be ascertained 
pretty nearly, from the circumstance, that Paul was 
prisoner at Rome when they were written. The 
epistle to the Ephesians may, with much probability, 
be referred to A. D. 61; the epistle to the Philip- 
pians to A. D. 62; and the epistle to the Colossians 
to the same year. 

The short epistle to Philemon was written, as 
appears by several coincidences, about the same time 
as those just mentioned. 

The epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been 
written about the termination of Paul's first im- 
prisonment at Rome. Its date, therefore, may with- 
out danger of mistake be referred to A. D. 62 or 
A. D. 63. 

J. D. Michaelis who, as has been seen, has done 



DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES. 227 

much to unsettle the Canon of Scripture, by calling 
in question the genuineness of some of the books, as 
well as the inspiration of some of the writers, has, in 
an elaborate essay, (vol. iv.) endeavoured to lessen 
the authority of this epistle. For an answer to the 
arguments of this learned, but sceptical Professor, I 
would refer the reader to Townsend's New Testa- 
ment, arranged in chronological and historical order. 

Paul's second epistle to Timothy seems to have 
been written during his second imprisonment at Rome, 
and shortly before his death, A. D. 6Q. 



228 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 



SECTION XI. 



CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 

The first epistle of Peter, and the first of John, are 
quoted by Ignatius, Polycarp and Papias, but not 
expressly as the writings of these apostles. For the 
particular passages cited the reader is referred to 
Lardner. Justin Martyr has a saying which is no- 
where found in Scripture, except in the second of Peter : 
it is, 'Hhat a day of the Lord is a thousand years.'" 
DiOGNETUS quotes several passages from the first of 
Peter, and the first of John. Iren^us quotes the first 
epistle of Peter expressly ; " And Peter says, in his 
epistle, Whom having not seen ye love" And from 
the second he takes the same passage which has just 
been cited, as quoted by Justin Martyr. The first and 
second of John are expressly quoted by this Father, 
for after citing his gospel he goes on to say, "Where- 
fore also in his epistle, he says. Little children^ it is 
the last time." And again, "In the forementioned 
epistle the Lord commands us to shun those persons 
who bring false doctrine, saying, ''Many deceivers are 
entered into the world, zvho confess not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and 
an Antichrist. Look to yoicrselves that ye lose not 
those things ivhich ye have wrought." Now these 
words are undoubtedly taken from John's second 



THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 229 

epistle. Irenseus seems, indeed, to quote them from 
the first, but this was probably a slip of the memory. 

Several passages out of the epistle of James are 
also cited by this father, but without any distinct 
reference to the source whence they are derived. 
Athenagoras also has some quotations which appear 
to be from James and 2 Peter. Clement of Alex- 
andria often quotes 1 Peter, and sometimes 2 Peter. 
The first epistle of John is often cited by him. Jude 
also is quoted several times expressly, as, " Of these 
and the like heretics, I think Jude spoke prophetically, 
when he said, ' I will that ye should know, that Grod hav- 
ing saved the people out of Egypt,' " &c. He has a 
remark on Jude's modesty, that he did not style him- 
self the brother of our Lord, although he w^as related 
to him, but begins his epistle, ""Jude the servant 
of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.'' 

Teetullian often quotes the first epistle of John ; 
but he has in none of his remaining writings cited 
anything from James, 2 Peter or 2 John. He has, 
however, one express quotation from Jude, " Hence 
it is," says he, "that Enoch is quoted by the apostle 
Jude." 

Origen, in his commentary on John's gospel, ex- 
pressly quotes the epistle of James in the following 
passage, "For though it be called faith, if it be without 
works, it is dead, as we read in the epistle ascribed to 
James." This is the only passage in the remaining 
Greek works of this father where this book is quoted; 
but in his Latin works, translated by Kufin, it is cited 
as the epistle of James the apostle and brother of our 
Lord ; and as " divine Scripture," The first epistle 
of Peter is often quoted expressly. In his book against 
20 



230 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 

Celsus, he sajs, "As it is said by Peter, 'Ye as 
lively stones are built up a spiritual house.' Again, 
Peter in his Catholic epistle, says, 'Put to death in 
the flesh, but quickened in the spirit.' " According 
to Eusebius, Origen considered the second of Peter as 
doubtful, and in his Greek works there are no clear 
citations from it; but there are found a few in his 
Latin works. In the passage preserved by Eusebius, 
he says, that some were doubtful respecting the second 
and third of John, " but for my part," says he, "let 
them be granted to be his." 

Origen has cited several passages from Jude, which 
are found in no other part of Scripture ; and in one 
place remarks, " Jude wrote an epistle of few lines 
indeed, but full of powerful words and heavenly grace, 
who at the beginning, says, ' Jude the servant of Jesus 
Christ, and brother of James.' " In another place, he 
shows, that some were doubtful of this epistle, for he 
says, " But if any one receives also the epistle of Jude, 
let him consider what will follow, from what is there 
said." This epistle is cited in his Latin works also; 
and several times in a Latin epistle ascribed to Origen. 

Cyprian nowhere quotes the epistle of James ; but 
the first of Peter is often cited. Several times he 
speaks of it as the epistle of Peter to the people of 
Pontus. He expressly ascribes it to "Peter the apos- 
tle," "the apostle of Christ," &c. 

The second of Peter he never quotes. The first of 
John is often quoted by Cyprian. " The apostle John," 
says he, "mindful of this command, writes in this epis- 
tle, ' Hereby we perceive that we know him, if we 
keep his commandments. He that saith I know him, 
and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the 



THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 231 

truth is not in him.' " The second and third of John 
he never mentions, nor the epistle of Jude. 

The opinion of Eusebius of Cesarosa, respecting 
the epistle of James, was, that it was written by one 
of Christ's disciples by the name of James, but he 
makes three of that name. Although he admits that 
the writer of this epistle was the brother of our Lord, 
who was made the first bishop of Jerusalem, yet he 
will not allow that he was one of the twelve. In his 
commentary on the Psalms, he says, " Is any among 
you afflicted ? let him pray. Is any merry ? let him 
sing psalms, as the sacred apostle says." In other 
parts of his works, he speaks very doubtfully of this 
epistle, and in one passage, where he distributes the 
books into classes, he mentions it among the books 
which he calls spurious ; by which, however, he only 
means that it was not canonical. In his ecclesiasti- 
cal history, he speaks of the epistles of Peter in the 
following manner, " One epistle of Peter called his 
first, is universally received. This the presbyters of 
ancient times have quoted in their writings as un- 
doubtedly genuine ; but that called his second epistle, 
we have been informed, has not been received into the 
Testament. Nevertheless, appearing to many to be 
useful, it has been carefully studied with the other Scrip- 
tures." And in another passage, he says, '' That 
called the first of John and the first of Peter are to 
be esteemed authentic. Of the controverted, yet well 
known or approved by the most, are, that called the 
epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of 
Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they 
were written by the evangelist, or by another." 

Athanasius quotes the epistle of James as written 



232 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 

by the apostle James. The first epistle of Peter is 
frequently quoted by him ; and he also cites passages 
from the second epistle, and ascribes them to Peter. 
Both the first and second epistles of John are dis- 
tinctly and expressly quoted : the third is not men- 
tioned. He also, in two instances, cites the words of 
Jude. 

Jekome's testimony concerning the epistle of James 
is full and explicit. His words are, " James, called 
the Lord's brother, surnamed Justus, as some think 
son of Joseph, by a former wife ; but as I rather 
think, the son of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mo- 
ther, mentioned by John in his gospel, (soon after our 
Lord's passion ordained by the apostles bishop of 
Jerusalem) wrote but one epistle, which is among the 
seven Catholic epistles; which too has been said to 
have been published by another in his name ; but 
gradually, in process of time, it has gained authority. 
This is he of whom Paul writes in the epistle to the 
Galatians, and he is often mentioned in the Acts of 
the Apostles, and also several times in the gospel, 
called, " according to the Hebrews," lately translated 
by me into Greek and Latin." 

Augustine received all the Catholic epistles. He 
quotes James as an apostle. He often cites both the 
epistles of Peter. He also refers to John's three epis- 
tles, and quotes Jude, and calls him an apostle. 

In the works of Ephrem, the Syrian, who lived, and 
wrote voluminously, in the fourth century, there are 
express quotations from the epistle of James, from the 
second of Peter, the second and third of John, and 
from Jude, as well as from those Catholic epistles 
which were undisputed. EuFiN received all the books 



THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 233 

as canonical, which are now so esteemed by Christians 
generally. Why these epistles have received the ap- 
pellation of Catholic^ various reasons have been as- 
signed. Some have supposed that they were so called, 
because they contain the one catholic doctrine which 
was delivered to the churches by the apostles of our 
Saviour, and which might be read by the universal 
church. Others are of opinion that they received this 
appellation, because they were not addressed to one 
person, or church, like the epistles of Paul, but to the 
Catholic church. This opinion seems not to be cor- 
rect, for some of them were written to the Christians 
of particular countries, and others to individuals. 

A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, and 
adopted by Dr. Macknight, and which has some pro- 
bability, is, that the first of Peter, and first of John, 
being received by all Christians, obtained the name 
of Catholic, to distinguish them from those which at 
first were not universally received ; but, in process of 
time, these last, coming to be universally received, 
were put into the same class with the first, and the 
whole thenceforward had the appellation of Catholic. 

This denomination is as old as the time of Euse- 
bius, and probably older, for Origen repeatedly called 
John's first epistle Catholic ; and the same is done by 
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. The same appella- 
tion was given to the whole seven by Athanasius, 
Epiphanius, and Jerome. Of these, it is probable, 
that the epistle of James was first written, but at what 
precise time, cannot be determined. 

As there were two disciples of the name of James, 
it has been much disputed to which of them this epis- 
tle should be attributed. Lardner and Macknight 
20* 



234 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 

have rendered it exceedingly probable that this epis- 
tle was written by James the Less, who is supposed to 
have been related to our Lord, and who seems for a 
long time to have had the chief authority in the church 
at Jerusalem ; but Michaelis is of a different opinion, 
and says, that he sees '^ no reason for the assertion, 
that James, the son of Zebedee, was not the author of 
this epistle." But the reasons which he assigns for 
his opinion have very little weight. 

The date of this epistle may, with considerable pro- 
bability, be referred to the year 62 ; for it is supposed 
that James was put to death in the following year. 
Its canonical authority and divine inspiration, although 
called in question by some, in ancient as well as mo- 
dern times, ought to be considered as undoubted. 
One strong evidence that it was thus received by early 
Christians, may be derived from the old Syriac version 
of the New Testament ; which, while it leaves out 
several other books, contains this. 

It seems not to have been as well known in the 
western churches as most other books of Scripture ; 
but learned men have observed, that Clement of Eome 
has quoted it no less than four times ; and it is also 
quoted by Ignatius, in his genuine epistle to the Ephe- 
sians ; and we have already shown that it was re- 
ceived as the writing of the apostle James, by Origen, 
Athanasius, and Jerome. 

The first epistle of Peter has ever been considered 
authentic, and has been cited by Clement of Rome, 
Polycarp, the Martyrs of Lyons, Theophilus Bishop 
of Antioch, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, 
and TertuUian. The only matter of doubt respecting 
it is, what place we are to understand by Babylon, 



THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 235 

where Peter was when he wrote. On this subject 
there are three opinions : the first, that by this name 
a place in Egypt is signified ; the second, that Baby- 
lon in Assyria, properly so called, is meant ; and the 
third, which is generally maintained by the Romanists, 
and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here called 
Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood that this 
epistle was written from Rome. The time of its being 
written was probably about the year of our Lord 65 
or 66. 

The date of the epistle of Jude may as well be 
placed about the same period, as at any other time, 
for we have no documents which can guide us to any 
certain decision. The objection to the canonical 
authority of this epistle, derived from the author's 
having quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, is of 
no validity ; for the fact is, that Jude makes no men- 
tion of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there 
is no evidence that the apocryphal book of Enoch 
was then in existence; but if he did quote a truth 
from such a book, it argues no more against his inspi- 
ration than Paul's quoting Epimenides does against 
his being an inspired man. 

The three epistles of John were probably written 
about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly been sup- 
posed that the Apocalypse was the last written book 
of the New Testament, but Townsend insists that the 
three epistles of John were last written. — See Town- 
send' s New Testament, vol. ii. 



236 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF 



SECTION XII. 



CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OP REVELATION. 

Hermas gives many indications of having read the 
Revelation, for he often imitates John's description 
of the New Jerusalem, and sometimes borrows his 
very words. He speaks of the Book of Life and of 
those whose names are written in it. He speaks also 
of the saints whom he saw, being clothed in garments 
white as snow. Papias also, doubtless, had seen the 
book of Revelation ; for some of his opinions were 
founded on a too literal interpretation of certain pro- 
phecies of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas 
expressly cites the Revelation. 

Justin Martyr is the first who gives explicit testi- 
mony to the Apocalypse. His words are, "And a 
man from among us by name John, one of the apos- 
tles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has 
prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live 
a thousand years in Jerusalem ; and after that, shall 
be the general and indeed eternal resurrection and 
judgment of all men together." In the epistle of the 
Church of Lyons and Vienne, in France, which was 
written about the year of our Lord one hundred and 
eighty, there is one passage cited from the book of 
Revelation: "For he was indeed a genuine disciple of 
Christ, ^following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.' " 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 237 

Iren^us expressly quotes the Revelation, and 
ascribes it to John the apostle. And in one place, 
he says, ''It (the Revelation,) was seen no long time 
ago in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian." 
And in the passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks 
of the exact and ancient copies of this book ; which 
he says, "was confirmed, likewise, by the concurring 
testimony of those who had seen John." 

Theophilus of Antioch, also, as we are assured by 
Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse of 
John, in his book against Hermogenes. And in his 
works which are extant, there is one passage which 
shows that he was acquainted with the Revelation. 
"This Eve," says he, "because she was deceived by 
the serpent — the evil demon, who is also called Satan, 
who then spoke to her by the serpent — does not 
cease to accuse: this demon is also called the Dra- 
gon." 

The Revelation of John is often quoted by Cle- 
ment of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, " Such 
an one, though here on earth he be not honoured 
with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty 
thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Re- 
velation." That Clement believed it to be the work 
of the apostle John is manifest, because in another 
place he expressly cites a passage, as the words of 
an apostle; and we have just seen that he ascribes 
the work to John. 

Tertullian cites many things from the Revelation 
of John ; and he seems to have entertained no doubt 
of its being the writing of the apostle John, as will ap- 
pear by a few quotations ; " John in his Apocalypse, 
is commanded to correct those who ate things sacri- 



238 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF 

ficed to idols, and commit fornication." Again, "The 
apostle John in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two- 
edged sword, coming out of the mouth of God." — 
" We have churches, disciples of John, for though 
Marcion rejects his Revelation, the succession of 
bishops, traced to the original, will assure us that John 
is the author." And in another place he has a long 
quotation from the book of Revelation. 

HiPPOLYTUS, who lived in the third century, and 
had great celebrity, both in the eastern and western 
churches, received the Revelation as without doubt 
the production of the apostle John. Indeed, he seems 
to have written a comment on this book, for Jerome, 
in the list of his works, mentions one, " On the Reve- 
lation." Hippolytus was held in so high esteem, that 
a noble monument was erected to him in the city of 
Rome, which, after lying for a long time buried, was 
dug up near that city, A. D. 1551. His name, 
indeed, is not now on the monument, but it contains a 
catalogue of his works, several of which have the same 
titles as those ascribed to Hippolytus by Jerome and 
Eusebius, together with others not mentioned by 
them ; among which is one " of the gospel of John 
and the Revelation." 

Origen calls the writer of the Apocalypse, " evan- 
gelist and apostle;" and, on account of the predic- 
tions which it contains, "prophet" also. In his book 
against Celsus he mentions " John's Revelation, and 
divers other books of Scripture." It was Origen's in- 
tention to write a commentary on this book, but 
whether he ever carried his purpose into execution is 
unknown. Nothing of the kind has reached our 
times. 



THE BOOK OF EEVELATION. 239 

DIONYSIUS of Alexandria, who lived about the mid- 
dle of the third century, and was one of the most 
learned men of his time, has entered into a more par- 
ticular discussion of the canonical authority of the 
book of Revelation than any other ancient author. 
From what has been said by him, we learn on what 
account it was that this book, after having been uni- 
versally received by the earlier Fathers, fell with some 
into a certain degree of discredit. About this time 
the Chiliasts, or Millennarians, who held that Christ 
would reign visibly on earth with his saints for a thou- 
sand years, during which period all manner of earthly 
and sensible pleasures would be enjoyed, made their 
appearance. This opinion they derived from a literal 
interpretation of some passages in the book of Reve- 
lation ; and as their error was very repugnant to the 
feelings of most of the Fathers, they were led to doubt 
of the authority, or to disparage the value of the book 
from which it was derived. 

The first rise of the Millennarians, of the grosser 
kind, seems to have been in the district of Arsinoe, 
in Egypt, where one Nepos composed several works 
in defence of their doctrine ; particularly a book 
"Against the Allegorists." Dionysius took much 
pains with these errorists, and entered with them 
into a free and candid discussion of their tenets, and 
of the true meaning of the book of Revelation ; and 
had the satisfaction to reclaim a number of them from 
their erroneous opinions. His own opinion of the 
Revelation he gives at large, and informs us, that 
some who lived before his time had utterly rejected 
this book, and ascribed it to Cerinthus ; but, for his 
own part, he professes to believe that it was written 



240 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF 

by an inspired man, whose name was Jolm, but a 
different person from the apostle of that name ; for 
which opinion he assigns several reasons, but none 
of much weight. His principal reason is, that the 
language of this book is different from that of the 
apostle John in his other writings. To which Lard- 
ner judiciously answers, that supposing this to be 
the fact, it will not prove the point, for the style of 
prophecy is very different from the epistolary or 
historical style. But this laborious and learned col- 
lector of facts denies that there is such a difference 
of style, as to lay a foundation for this opinion ; and, 
in confirmation of his own opinion, he descends to 
particulars, and shows that there are some striking 
points of resemblance between the language of the 
Apocalypse and the acknowledged writings of the 
apostle John. 

The opinion of those persons who believed it to be 
the work of Cerinthus, is utterly without foundation ; 
for this book contains opinions expressly contrary to 
those maintained by this heretic ; and even on the 
subject of the millennium his views did not coincide 
with those expressed in the Revelation. Caius seems 
to have been the only ancient author who attributed 
this book to Cerinthus, and to him Dionysius probably 
referred when he spoke of some, before his time, who 
held this opinion. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, re- 
ceived the book of Revelation as of canonical authority, 
as appears by the manner in which he quotes it. 
"Hear," says he, "in the Revelation, the voice of 
thy Lord, reproving such men as these, ' Thou sayest 
I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of 
nothing, and knowest not that thou art wretched, and 



THE BOOK OP REVELATION. 241 

miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.' " Rev. 
iii. 17. Again, " So in the Holy Scriptures, by which 
the Lord would have us to be instructed and warned, 
is the harlot city described." Rev. xvii. 1 — 3. Finally, 
" That waters signify people, the divine Scriptures 
show in the Revelation." 

YiCTORiNUS, who lived towards the close of the 
third century, often cites the book of Revelation, and 
ascribes it to John the apostle. That Lactantius 
received this book is manifest, because he has written 
much respecting the future destinies of the church, 
which is founded on the prophecies which it contains. 

Until the fourth century, then, it appears that the 
Revelation was almost universally received ; not a 
writer of any credit calls it in question ; and but one 
hesitates about ascribing it to John the apostle ; but 
even he held it to be written by an inspired man. 
But, about the beginning of the fourth century, it 
began to fall into discredit w^ith some on account of 
the mysterious nature of its contents, and the en- 
couragement which it was supposed to give to the 
Chiliasts. Therefore Eusebius of Cesaraea, after 
giving a list of such books as were universally re- 
ceived, adds, " After these, if it be thought fit, may be 
placed the Revelation of John, concerning which we 
shall observe the different opinions at a proper time." 
And again, " There are, concerning this book, differ- 
ent opinions." 

This is the first doubt expressed by any respectable 
writer concerning the canonical authority of this 
book ; and Eusebius did not reject it, but would have 
it placed next after those which were received with 
universal consent. And we find at this very time, 
21 



242 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF 

t"he most learned and judicious of the Fathers received 
the Revelation without scruple, and annexed it to their 
catalogues of the books of the New Testament. Thus 
Athanasius, after giving an account of the twentj- 
two canonical books of the Old Testament, proceeds 
to enumerate the books of the New Testament, in the 
following manner, which he makes eight in number : — 
1. Matthew's gospel; 2. Mark's; 3. Luke's; 4. John's; 
5. The Acts ; 6. The Catholic epistles ; 7. Paul's 
fourteen epistles ; and 8. the Revelation, given to 
John the evangelist and divine in Patmos. 

Jerome, in giving an account of the writings of 
John the evangelist, speaks also of another John, called 
the presbyter, to whom some ascribed the second and 
third epistles under the name of John. And we have 
already seen that Dionysius of Alexandria ascribed 
the Revelation to another John. This opinion, we 
learn from Jerome, originated in the fact, that two 
monuments were found at Ephesus, each inscribed 
with the name John ; but he says, " Some think 
that both the monuments are of John the evangelist." 
Then he proceeds to give some account of the Revela- 
tion. "Domitian," says he, " in the fourteenth year 
of his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero, 
John was banished into the isle of Patmos, where he 
wrote the Revelation, which Justin Martyr and Ire- 
nseus explain." Augustine, also, received the book 
of Revelation, and quotes it very frequently. lie as- 
cribes it to the same John who wrote the gospel and 
the epistles. 

From the view which has been taken of the testi- 
monies in favour of the book of Revelation, I think it 
must appear manifest to every candid reader, that 



THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 243 

few books in the New Testament have more complete 
evidence of canonical authority. The only thing 
which requires explanation is, the omission of this 
book in so many of the catalogues of the Fathers, and 
of ancient councils. Owing to the mysterious nature 
of the contents of this book, and to the abuse of its 
prophecies, by the too literal construction of them by 
the Millennarians, it was judged expedient not to have 
this book read publicly in the churches. Now, the 
end of forming these catalogues was to guide the 
people in reading the Scriptures ; and as it seems not 
to have been desired, that the people should read this 
mysterious book, it was omitted by many in their 
catalogues. Still, however, a majority of them have 
it ; and some who omitted it, are known to have re- 
ceived it as canonical. 

This also will account for the fact, that many of 
the manuscripts of the New Testament are without 
the Revelation ; so that there are extant, compara- 
tively, few copies of this book. But the authenticity 
and authority of the Apocalypse stand on ground 
which can never be shaken ; and the internal evi- 
dence is strong in favour of a divine origin. There 
is a sublimity, purity, and consistency in it, which 
could not have proceeded from an impostor. In 
addition to all which, we observe, that the fulfilment 
of many of the predictions of this book is so remark- 
able, that to many learned men who have attended 
to this subject, the evidence from this source alone 
is demonstrative of its divine origin. And there is 
every reason to believe, that in the revolution of 
events this book, which is now to many sealed with 
seven seals, will be opened, and will be so explained, 



244 THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 

that all men will see and acknowledge that it is in- 
deed " The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God 
gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which 
must shortly come to pass — and sent and signified it 
by his angel to his servant John, who bare record 
of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus 
Christ." Rev. i. 1, 2. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 245 



SECTION XIII 



THE TITLES GIVEN TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES BY THE 
FATHERS — THESE BOOKS NOT CONCEALED, BUT PARTI- 
ALLY KNOWN AND REFERRED TO BY ENEMIES AS WELL 
AS FRIENDS — CITATIONS ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS — RE- 
MARKS OF RENNELL. 

After having given a particular account of the 
several books of the New Testament, it may be useful 
to subjoin a few general remarks on the testimony 
exhibited. 

1. The writings of the apostles, from the time of 
their first publication, were distinguished by all Chris- 
tians from all other books. They were spoken of by 
the Fathers, as "Scripture;" as "divine Scripture;" 
as "inspired of the Lord;" as, "given by the inspira- 
tion of the Holy Ghost." The only question ever 
agitated, respecting any of these books, was, whether 
they were indeed the productions of the apostles. 
When this was clear, no man disputed their divine 
authority, or considered it lawful to dissent from 
their dictates. They were considered as occupying 
the same place, in regard to inspiration and authority, 
as the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and in imita- 
tion of this denomination they were called the New 
Testament. The other names by which they were 
distinguished, were such as these, the gospel; — the 
21* 



246 GENERAL llEMARKS. 

apostles ; — tlie divine gospels ; — the evangelical in- 
strument ; — the Scriptures of the Lord ; — holy Scrip- 
tures ; — evangelical voice ; — divine Scriptures ; — Ora- 
cles of the Lord ; — divine fountains ; — fountains of 
the divine fulness. 

2. These books were not in obscurity, but were 
read with veneration and avidity by multitudes. They 
were read not only by the learned, but by the people ; 
not only in private, but constantly in the public as- 
semblies of Christians, as appears by the explicit tes- 
timony of Justin Martyr, TertuUian, Eusebius, Cy- 
prian, and Augustine. And no other books were 
thus venerated and read. If some other pieces were 
publicly read, yet the Fathers always made a wide 
distinction between them and the sacred Scriptures. 

3. In all the controversies which arose in the 
church, these books were acknowledged by all to be 
decisive authority, unless by some few of the very 
worst heretics, who mutilated the Scriptures, and 
forged others for themselves, under the names of the 
apostles. But most of the heretics endeavoured to 
support their opinions by an appeal to the writings 
of the New Testament. The Yalentinians, the Mon- 
tanists, the Sabellians, the Artemonites, the Arians, 
received the Scriptures of the New Testament. The 
same was the case with the Priscillianists and the 
Pelagians. In the Arian controversy, which occupied 
the church so long and so earnestly, the Scriptures 
were appealed to by both parties; and no controversy 
arose respecting the authenticity of the books of the 
New Testament. 

4. The avowed enemies of Christianity, who wrote 
against the truth, recognized the books which are 



24T 

now in the Canon, as tliose acknowledged by Chris- 
tians in their times, for they refer to the matters con- 
tained in them, and some of them mention several 
books by name ; so that it appears from the accounts 
which we have of these writings, that they were 
acquainted with the volume of the New Testament. 
Celsus, who lived and wrote less than a hundred 
years after the apostles, says, as is testified by Ori- 
gen, w^ho answered him, " I could say many things 
concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those too differ- 
ent from what is written by the disciples of Jesus, 
but I purposely omit them." That Celsus here refers 
to the gospels there can be no doubt. In another 
place, he says, " These things then we have alleged 
to you out of your own writings'' And that the 
gospels to which he referred were the same as those 
which we now possess, is evident from his reference to 
matters contained in them. 

Porphyry in the third century wrote largely, and 
professedly, against the Christian religion ; and al- 
though his work has shared the same fate as that of 
Celsus, yet, from some fragments which have been 
preserved, we can ascertain that he was well ac- 
quainted with the four gospels, for the things to 
which he objects are still contained in them. 

But the emperor Julian expressly mentions Mat- 
thew and Luke, and cites various things out of the 
gospels. He speaks also of John, and alleges that 
none of Christ's disciples beside ascribed to him the 
creation of the world; — and also, "that neither 
Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, has dared 
to call Jesus, God;" — "that John wrote later than 
the other evangeHsts, and at a time when a great 



248 

number of men in tlie cities of Greece and Italy were 
converted." He alludes to the conversion of Corne- 
lius and Sergius Paulus ; to Peter's vision, and to the 
circular letter sent by the apostles at Jerusalem to 
the churches ; which things are recorded in the Acts 
of the Apostles.* 

Now, if the genuineness of these books could have 
been impugned on any plausible grounds ; or if any 
doubt had existed respecting this matter, surely such 
men as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, could not have 
been ignorant of the matter, and would not have 
failed to bring forward everything of this kind 
which they knew ; for their hostility to Christianity 
was unbounded. And it is certain, that Porphyry 
did avail himself of an objection of this kind in re- 
gard to the book of Daniel. Since then not one of 
the early enemies of Christianity ever suggested a 
doubt of the genuineness of the books of the New 
Testament, we may rest assured that no ground of 
doubt existed in their day ; and that the fact of these 
being the genuine writings of the men whose names 
they bear, was too clearly established to admit any 
doubt. The genuineness of the books of the New 
Testament having been admitted by friends and ene- 
mies — by the orthodox and heretics, in those ages 
when the fact could be ascertained easily, it is too 
late in the day now for infidels to call this matter in 
question. 

5. But the testimony which we possess, is not only 
sufficient to prove that the books of the New Testa- 
ment were written by the persons whose names they 
bear, but also that these books, in the early ages of 
* See Lardner and Paley. 



EAELY VERSIONS. 249 

the church, contained the same things which are now 
read in them. Omitting any particular notice of 
about half a dozen passages, the genuineness of which 
is in dispute, I would remark, that when we compare 
the numerous and copious quotations from these books, 
which are found in the writings of the Fathers, with 
our own copies, the argument is most satisfactory. 
It is true, indeed, that the Fathers do sometimes ap- 
parently quote from memory; and in that case, the 
words of the sacred writer are a little changed or trans- 
posed, but the sense is accurately retained. In gene- 
ral, however, the quotations of Scripture, in the wri- 
tings of the Fathers, are verbally exact ; there being 
no other variation, than what arises from the different 
idiom of the language which they use. I suppose 
that almost every verse, in some books of the New 
Testament, has been cited by one or another of the 
Fathers ; so that if that book were lost, it might be 
restored by means of the quotations from it in other 
books. 

But besides these quotations, we have versions of 
the whole New Testament into various languages, 
some of which were made very early, probably not 
much later than the end of the first, or beginning of 
the second century. Now, on a comparison, all 
these versions contain the same discourses, parables, 
miracles, doctrines, precepts, and divine institutions. 
Indeed, so literal have been most versions of the 
New Testament, that they answer to one another, 
and to the original, almost word for word. 

Besides, there are in existence hundreds and thou- 
sands of manuscripts of the New Testament, which 
were written in different ages of the church, from 



250 ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS. 

the fourth or fifth century until the sixteenth. Most 
of these have been penned with great care, and in 
the finest style of calligraphy. The oldest are writ- 
ten on beautiful parchment, in what are called un- 
cial, or capital letters. Some of these manuscripts 
contain all the books of the New Testament ; others 
only a part ; and in some instances, a single book. 
Some are in a state of good preservation, while others 
are worn and mutilated, and the writing so obscure 
as to be scarcely legible. And what is very remark- 
able, some copies of the New Testament on parch- 
ment have been found written over again with other 
matter, after the original words had been as fully 
obliterated as could easily be done. This seems a 
very strange practice, considering that good copies 
of the Bible must have been always too few ; but the 
scarcity of parchment was so great, that men who 
were anxious to communicate their own lucubrations 
to the public, would resort to any shift to procure 
the materials for waiting. And this is not more cul- 
pable or more wonderful than what has been known 
to take place in our own land and times, where the 
leaves of Walton's Polyglot Bible have been torn and 
used for wrapping paper. 

The exact age of the oldest manuscripts of the New 
Testament cannot be accurately ascertained, as they 
have no dates accompanying them which can safely 
be depended on ; but as it is pretty well known at 
what period Greek accents were introduced, and 
also when the large uncial letter, as it is called, 
was exchanged for the small letter now in common 
use ; if a manuscript is found written in the old fashion, 
in large letters, without intervals between the words, 



REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 251 

and without accents, it is known that it must be more 
ancient than the period when the mode of writing was 
changed. Now, it is manifest, that when these manu- 
scripts were penned, the Canon was settled by common 
consent, for they all contain the same books, as far as 
as they go. 

I will sum up my observations on the Canon of the 
New Testament, by quoting a sensible and very ap- 
propriate passage from the late learned Mr. Rennel. 
It is found in his Remarks on Hone's Collection of 
the apocryphal writings of the apostolic age. 

" When was the Canon of Scripture determined ? 
It was determined immediately after the death of 
John, the last survivor of the apostolic order. The 
Canon of the gospels was indeed determined before 
his death, for we read in Eusebius, that he gave his 
sanction to the three other gospels, and completed 
this part of the New Testament with his own. By 
the death of John, the catalogue of Scripture was 
completed and closed. We have seen, both from the 
testimony of themselves and of their immediate succes- 
sors, that the inspiration of writing was confined 
strictly to the apostles, and accordingly we find that 
no similar pretensions were ever made by any true 
Christian to a similar authority. 

" By whom was the Canon of Scripture determined? 
It was determined not by the decision of any indi- 
vidual, nor by the decree of any council, but by the 
general consent of the whole and every part of the 
Christian church. It is, indeed, a remarkable cir- 
cumstance, that among the various disputes which 
so early agitated the church, the Canon of Scripture 
was never a subject of controversy. If any question 



252 REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 

miglit be said to have arisen, it was in reference to 
one or two of those books which are included in the 
present Canon ; but with respect to those which are 
out of the Canon no difference of opinion ever 
existed. 

" The reason of this agreement is a very satisfac- 
tory one. Every one who is at all versed in Eccle- 
siastical History is aware of the continual inter- 
course which took place in the apostolical age be- 
tween the various branches of the church universal. 
This communication, as Mr. Nolan has well ob- 
served, arose out of the Jewish polity, under which 
various synagogues of the Jews which were dispersed 
throughout the gentile world, were all subjected to 
the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and maintained a con- 
stant correspondence with it. Whenever then an 
epistle arrived at any particular church, it was first 
authenticated ; it was then read to all the holy breth- 
ren, and was subsequently transmitted to some other 
neighbouring church. Thus we find that the authen- 
tication of the epistles of Paul was, 'the salutation 
with his own hands,' by which the church to which 
the epistle was first addressed might be assured that 
it was not a forgery. We find also a solemn adju- 
ration of the same apostle, that his epistle ' should be 
read to all the holy brethren.' ' When this epistle 
is read among you, cause that it be read also in the 
church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read 
the epistle from Laodicea.' 2 Thess. iii. 17; 1 Thess. 
V. 27 ; Col. iv. 6. From this latter passage we infer, 
that the system of transmission was a very general 
one, as the epistle which Paul directs the Colossians 
to receive from the Laodiceans was not originally 



REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 253 

directed to the latter, but was sent to them from 
some other church. To prevent any mistake or fraud, 
this transmission was made bj the highest authority, 
namely, by that of the bishop. Through him official 
communications were sent from one church to another, 
even in the remotest countries. Clement, the bishop 
of Rome, communicated with the church at Corinth ; 
Poly carp, the bishop of Smyrna, wrote an epistle to 
the Philippians ; Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, cor- 
responded with the churches of Rome, of Magnesia, 
of Ephesus, and others. These three bishops were 
the companions and immediate ^successors of the apos- 
tles, and followed the system of correspondence and 
intercourse which their masters had begun. Con- 
sidering all these circumstances, we shall be convinced 
how utterly improbable it was, that any authentic 
work of an apostle should have existed in one church 
without being communicated to another. It is a very 
mistaken notion of Dodwell, that the books of the 
New Testament lay concealed in the coffers of par- 
ticular churches and were not known to the rest of 
the world until the late days of Trajan. This might 
have been perfectly true, with respect to the originals, 
which were doubtless guarded with peculiar care, in 
the custody of the particular churches to which they 
were respectively addressed. But copies of these 
originals, attested by the authority of the bishop, 
were transmitted from one church to another with the 
utmost freedom, and were thus rapidly dispersed 
throughout the Christian world. As a proof of 
this, Peter, in an epistle addressed generally to 
the churches in Asia, speaks of 'all the epistles of 
22 



254 REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 

Paul,' as a body of Scripture, universally circulated 
and known. 

" The number of the apostles, including Paul and 
Barnabas, was but fourteen. To these, and these 
alone, in the opinion of the early church, was the in- 
spiration of writing confined: out of these, six only 
deemed it necessary to write ; what they did write, 
was authenticated with the greatest caution, and cir- 
culated with the utmost rapidity ; what was received 
in any church as the writing of an apostle, was pub- 
licly read ; no church was left to itself, or to its own 
direction, but was frequently visited by the apostles, 
and corresponded with by their successors. All the 
distant members of the church universal, in the apos- 
tles' age, being united by frequent intercourse and 
communication, became one body in Christ. Taking 
all these things into consideration, we shall see with 
what ease and rapidity the Canon of Scripture would 
be formed, there being no room either for fraudulent 
fabrication on the one hand, or for arbitrary rejec- 
tion on the other. The case was too clear to require 
any formal discussion, nor does it appear that there 
was any material forgery that could render it neces- 
sary. 

" The writings of the apostles, and of the apostles 
alone, were received as the word of God, and were 
separated from all others, by that most decisive species 
of authority, the authority of a general, an immediate, 
and an undisputed consent. This will appear the 
more satisfactory to our minds if we take an example 
from the age in which we live. The letters of Junius, 
for instance, were published at intervals within a cer- 
tain period. Since the publication of the last authen- 



REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 255 

tic letter, many under that signature have appeared, 
purporting to have been written by the same author. 
But this circumstance throws no obscurity over the 
matter, nor is the Canon of Junius, if I may transfer 
the term from sacred to secular writing, involved in 
any difficulty or doubt. If it should be hereafter in- 
quired, at what time, or by what authority the authen- 
tic letters were separated from the spurious, the an- 
swer will be, that such a separation never took place ; 
but that the Canon of Junius was immediately deter- 
mined after the last letter. To us, who live so near 
the time of publication, the line of distinction between 
the genuine and spurious is so strongly marked, and 
the evidence of authenticity on the one side, and of 
forgery on the other, is so clear and convincing, that 
a formal rejection of the latter is unnecessary. The 
case has long since been determined by the tacit con- 
sent of the whole British nation, and no man in his 
senses would attempt to dispute it. 

" Yet how much stronger is the case of the Scrip- 
tural Canon ! The author of Junius was known to 
none. He could not therefore of himself bear any tes- 
timony to the authenticity of his works ; the authors 
of the New Testament were known to all, and were 
especially careful to mark, to authenticate, and to 
distinguish their writings. The author of Junius had 
no personal character which could stamp his writing 
with any high or special authority ; whatever pro- 
ceeded from the apostles of Christ, was immediately 
regarded as the offspring of an exclusive inspiration. 
For the Canon of Junius we have no external evi- 
dence, but that of a single publisher : for the Canon 
of Scripture, we have the testimony of churches 



256 REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 

which were visited, bishops who were appointed, and 
converts innumerable, who were instructed by the 
apostles themselves. It was neither the duty nor the 
interest of any one, excepting the publisher, to pre- 
serve the volume of Junius from spurious editions : to 
guard the integrity of the sacred volume was the 
bounden duty of every Christian who believed that 
its words were the words of eternal life. 

" If then, notwithstanding these and other difficul- 
ties which might be adduced, the Canon of Junius is 
established beyond controversy or dispute, by the ta- 
cit consent of all who live in the age in which it was 
written, there can be no reason why the Canon of 
Scripture, under circumstances infinitely stronger, 
should not have been determined in a manner pre- 
cisely the same ; especially when we remember, that 
in both cases the forgeries made their appearance 
subsequently to the determination of the Canon. There 
is not a single book in the spurious department of the 
apocryphal volume which was even known when the 
Canon of Scripture was determined. This is a fact 
which considerably strengthens the case. There was 
no difficulty or dispute in framing the Canon of Scrip- 
ture, because there were no competitors whose claims 
it was expedient to examine ; no forgeries, whose im- 
postures it was necessary to detect. The first age of 
the church was an age of too much vigilance, of too 
much communication, of too much authority for any 
fabrication of Scripture, to hope for success. If any 
attempt was made it was instantly crushed. When 
the authority of the apostles and of apostolic men had 
lost its influence, and heresies and disputes had arisen, 
then it was that forgeries began to appear .... 



REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 257 

Nothing, indeed, but the general and long determined 
consent of the whole Christian world, could have pre- 
served the sacred volume in its integrity, unimpaired 
by the mutilation of one set of heretics, and unincum- 
bered by the forgeries of another." 



22 



258 NO CANONICAL BOOK 



SECTION XIV. 



NO CANONICAL BOOK OP THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS BEEN 
LOST. 

This was a subject of warm dispute between the Ro- 
manists and Protestants at the time of the Reforma- 
tion. The former, to make room for their farrago of 
unwritten traditions, maintained the affirmative ; and 
such men as Bellarmine and Pineda asserted roundly, 
that some of the most valuable parts of the canonical 
Scriptures were lost. The Protestants, on the other 
hand, to support the sufficiency and perfection of the 
Holy Scriptures, the corner stone of the Reformation, 
strenuously and successfully contended, that no part 
of the canonical volume had been lost. 

But the opinion, that some inspired books, which 
once belonged to the Canon, have been lost, has been 
maintained by some more respectable writers than 
those Romanists just mentioned. Chrysostom, The- 
ophylact, Calvin, and Whitaker, have all, in some 
degree, countenanced the same opinion, in order to 
avoid some difficulty, or to ansAver some particular 
purpose. The subject, so far as the Old Testament is 
concerned, has already been considered ; it shall now 
be our endeavour to show that no canonical book of 
the New Testament has been lost. 



HAS BEEN LOST. 259 

And here I am ready to concede, as was before 
done, that there may have been books written by in- 
spired men that have been lost : for inspiration was 
occasional, not constant ; and confined to matters of 
faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in 
matters of mere science. If Paul or Peter, or any 
other apostle, had occasion to write private letters to 
their friends, on subjects not connected with religion, 
there is no reason to think that these were inspired ; 
and if such writings have been lost, the Canon of 
Scripture has suffered no more by this means than 
by the loss of any other uninspired books. 

But again, I am willing to go further and say, that 
it is possible, (although I know no evidence of the 
fact,) that some things written under the influence of 
inspiration for a particular occasion, and to rectify 
some disorder in a particular church, may have been 
lost without injury to the Canon. For as much that 
the apostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly 
lost, so there is no reason why every word which 
they wrote must necessarily be preserved and form 
a part of the canonical volume. For example, sup- 
pose that when Paul said, 1 Cor. v. 9, " I wrote to 
you in an epistle not to company with fornicators," he 
referred to an epistle which he had written to the 
Corinthians before the one now called the first, it 
might never have been intended that this letter should 
form a constituent part of the Canon ; for although it 
treated of subjects connected with Christian faith or 
practice, yet, an occasion having arisen, in a short 
time, of treating these subjects more at large, every 
thing in that epistle, (supposing it ever to have been 
written,) may have been included in the two epistles 



260 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

to the Corinthians which are now in the Canon. Or, 
to adopt for illustration, the ingenious hypothesis of 
Dr. Lightfoot, the epistle referred to, which was sent 
by Timothy, who took a circuitous route through 
Macedonia, might not have reached them until Paul 
wrote the long and interesting epistle called the first 
to the Corinthians, and thus the former one would 
be superseded. But we adduce this case merely for 
illustration, for we will attempt presently to show 
that no evidence exists that any such epistle was ever 
written. 

1. The first argument to prove that no canonical 
book has been lost, is derived from the watchful care 
of Providence over the sacred Scriptures. 

Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspira- 
tion of the Holy Spirit, and intended to form a part 
of the Canon, which is the rule of faith to the church, 
should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely not 
very honourable to the wisdom of God, and no way 
consonant with the ordinary method of his dispensa- 
tions in regard to his precious truth. There is good 
reason to think that if God saw it needful, and for 
the edification of the church, that such books should 
be written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
by his providence he would have taken care to pre- 
serve them from destruction. We do know that this 
treasure of divine truth has been in all ages, and in 
the worst times, the special care of God, or not one 
of the sacred books would now be in existence. And 
if one canonical book might be lost through the negli- 
gence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all ? And 
thus the end of God in making a revelation of his will 
might have been defeated. 



HAS BEEN LOST. 261 

But whatever other corruptions have crept into the 
Jewish or Christian churches, it does not appear that 
either of them, as a body, ever incurred the cen- 
sure of having been careless in preserving the oracles 
of God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who 
perverted the sacred Scriptures to their own ruin, 
with having lost any portion of the sacred deposit 
intrusted to them. 

History informs us of the fierce and malignant de- 
sign of Antiochus Epiphanes to abolish every vestige 
of the sacred volume ; but the same history assures us 
that the Jewish people manifested a heroic fortituda 
and invincible patience in resisting and defeating his 
impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice 
their lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver 
up the copies of the sacred volume in their possession. 
And the same spirit was manifested, and with the 
same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the 
Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate the 
sacred writings of Christians, and multitudes sufi'ered 
death for refusing to deliver up the New Testament. 
Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel 
persecution did, in the hour of temptation, consent 
to surrender the holy book ; but they were ever after- 
wards called traitors; and it was with the utmost 
difiiculty that any of them could be received again 
into the communion of the church after a long repent- 
ance, and the most humbling confessions of their fault. 
Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it must have 
been in these early times when the word of God was 
valued far above life, and when every Christian stood 
ready to seal the truth with his blood. 

2. Another argument which appears to me to be 



262 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

convincing is, that in a little time all the sacred 
books were dispersed over the whole world. If a 
book had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed 
in one region, the loss could soon have been repaired by 
sending for copies to other countries. 

The considerations just mentioned would, I pre- 
sume, be satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not 
that it is supposed, that there is evidence that some 
things were written by the apostles which are not 
now in the Canon. We have already referred to an 
epistle to the Corinthians which Paul is supposed to 
have written to them previously to the writing of 
those which we now possess. But it is by no means 
certain, or even probable, that Paul ever did write 
such an epistle ; for not one ancient writer makes the 
least mention of any such letter ; nor is there any 
where to be found any citation from it, or any refer- 
ence to it. It is a matter of testimony in which all 
the Fathers concur, as with one voice, that Paul wrote 
no more than fourteen epistles, all of which we now 
have. 

The testimony of Clement of Rome is clear on this 
subject; and he was the friend and companion of 
Paul, and must have known which was the first 
epistle addressed by him to the Corinthian chui'ch. 
He says, in a passage before cited, '' Take again the 
epistle of the blessed apostle Paul into your hands. 
What was it that he first ivrote to you^ in the begin- 
ning of his epistle ? He did truly by the Spirit write 
to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, 
because even at that time you were formed into 
divisions or parties." 

The only objection which can be conceived to this 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 263 

testimony is, that Clement's words, when literally 
translated, read, " Take again the gospel {svayys-ktov) 
of the blessed apostle Paul ;" but it is well known 
that the early Fathers called any book containing 
the doctrines of Christ the gospel; and in this case, 
all reasonable doubt is precluded, because Clement 
identifies the writing to which he referred, by men- 
tioning some of its contents, which are found in the 
first epistle to the Corinthians, and no where else. 

But still, Paul's own declaration, stands in the way of 
our opinion, " I wrote to you in an epistle." 1 Cor. v. 9, 11. 
The words in the original are, Eypc^a vfiiv sv tvj imato'krt^ 
the literal version of which is, "I have written to you 
in the epistle, or in this epistle;" that is, in the for- 
mer part of it ; where in fact we find the very thing 
which he says that he had written. See v. 2, 5, 6, of 
this same fifth chapter. But it is thought by learned 
and judicious commentators, that the words following^ 
Ni;vt Ss iy^oA^avinv " but now I havo written unto you," 
require that we should understand the former clause 
as relating to some former time ; but a careful atten- 
tion to the context will convince us that this refer- 
ence is by no means necessary. The apostle had told 
them, in the beginning of the chapter, to avoid the 
company of fornicators, &c. ; but it is manifest, from 
the tenth verse, that he apprehended that his mean- 
ing might be misunderstood, by extending the prohi- 
bition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with the 
world, therefore he repeats what he had said, and in- 
forms them, that it had relation only to the professors 
of Christianity, who should be guilty of such vices. 
The whole may be thus paraphrased: " I wrote to you 
above, in my letter, that you should separate from 



264 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

those who were fornicators, and that you should 
purge them out as old leaven ; but fearing lest you 
should misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I 
have directed you to avoid all intercourse with the 
heathen around you, who are addicted to these shame- 
ful vices, which would make it necessary that you 
should go out of the world, I now inform you that my 
meaning is, that you do not associate familiarly with 
any who make a profession of Christianity, and yet 
continue in these evil practices." 

In confirmation of this interpretation we can ad- 
duce the old Syriac version, which having been 
made soon after the days of the apostles, is good tes- 
timony in relation to this matter of fact. In this ve- 
nerable version, the meaning of the 11th verse is thus 
given, "This is what I have written unto you," or, 
"The meaning of what I have written unto you."* 
Dr. Whitby understands this passage in a way dif- 
ferent from any that has been mentioned ; the reader 
is referred to his commentary on the place. And we 
have before mentioned the ingenious conjecture of Dr. 
Lightfoot, to which there is no objection, except that 
it is totally unsupported by evidence. 

It deserves to be mentioned here, that there is now 
extant a letter from Paul to the Corinthians, distinct 
from those epistles of his which we have in the Ca- 
non ; and also an epistle from the church of Corinth 
to Paul. These epistles are in the Armenian lan- 
guage, but have been translated into Latin. The 
epistle ascribed to Paul is very short, and undoubt- 
edly spurious. It contains no prohibitions relative to 
keeping company with fornicators. It was never 
* See Jones on the Canon, vol. i. pp. 139, 140. 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 265 

cited by any of the early writers, nor indeed heard 
of until within a century past. It contains some un- 
sound opinions concerning the speedy appearance of 
Christ, which Paul, in some of his epistles, took pains 
to contradict. The manner of salutation is very dif- 
ferent from that of Paul ; and this apostle is made to 
declare, that he had received what he taught them 
from the former apostles, which is contrary to his re- 
peated solemn asseverations in several of his epistles. 
In regard to the epistle under the name of the church 
of Corinth, it does not properly fall under our consid- 
eration, for though it were genuine it would have no claim 
to a place in the Canon. The curious reader will find 
a literal translation of both these epistles in Jones's 
"New Method of settling the Canon."* 

The only other passage in the New Testament, 
which has been thought to refer to an epistle of Paul 
not now extant is that in Col. iv. 16. " And when 
this epistle is read among you, cause also that it be 
read in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye like- 
wise read the epistle from Laodicea." 

Now, there is clear evidence, that so early as the 

beginning of the second century there existed an 

epistle under this title ; but it was not received by the 

church, but was in the hands of Marcion, who was a 

famous forger and corrupter of sacred books. He 

■was contemporary with Polycarp, and therefore very 

near to the times of the apostles, but was stigmatized 

as an enemy of the truth ; for he had the audacity to 

form a gospel, according to his own mind, which 

went by his name ; and also an apostolicon, which 

contained only ten of Paul's epistles ; and these altered 

* Vol. i. p. 14. 
23 



266 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

and accommodated to his own notions. These, 
according to Epiphanius, were, " The epistle to the 
Galatians, the two to the Corinthians, to the Romans, 
the two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, to Phil- 
emon, and to the Philippians. — ^And," sajs he, "he 
takes in some part of that which is called ' the epis- 
tle to the Laodiceans,' and this he styles the ele- 
venth of those received by Marcion." 

Tertullian, however, gives a very different account 
of this matter. He asserts, " that Marcion and his 
followers called that the epistle to the Laodiceans, 
which was the epistle to the Ephesians : which epis- 
tle," says he, " we are assured, by the testimony of the 
church, was sent to the Ephesians, and not to the 
Laodiceans ; though Marcion has taken upon him 
falsely to prefix that title to it, pretending therein to 
have made some notable discovery." And again, 
" I shall say nothing now of that other epistle, which 
we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but the heretics 
entitle it ' to the Laodiceans.' " 

This opinion, which, by Tertullian, is ascribed to 
Marcion, respecting the true title of the epistle to the 
Ephesians, has been adopted, and ingeniously de- 
fended by several distinguished moderns, as Grotius, 
Hammond, Whitby, and Paley. They rely princi- 
pally on internal evidence ; for unless Marcion be ac- 
cepted as a witness, I do not recollect that any of the 
early writers can be quoted in favour of that opinion ; 
but in the course of this work, we have put down the 
express testimony of some of the most respectable 
and learned of the Fathers, on the other side ; and all 
those passages in the epistle which seem inconsistent 
with its being addressed to the Ephesians, and neigh- 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 267 

bouring churches of Asia, can easily be explained. — 
See Lardner and Macknight. 

But there is also an epistle to the Laodiceans, now 
extant, against which nothing can be said, except 
that almost everything contained in it is taken out of 
Paul's other epistles, so that if it should be received, 
we add nothing in reality to the Canon ; and if it 
should be rejected, we lose nothing. The reader may 
find a translation of this epistle inserted in the notes 
at the end of the volume.* 

But what evidence is there that Paul ever wrote 
an epistle to the Laodiceans ? The text on which this 
opinion has been founded, in ancient and modern 
times, correctly interpreted, has no such import. 
The words in the original are, xa^ trjv bx AaoStxstaj ivn 
scat v/t£is avayvoit£. " And that yc likewise read the 
epistle from Laodicea." Col. iv. 16. These words 
have been differently understood ; for by them some 
understand, that an epistle had been written by Paul 
to the Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in 
the church at Colosse. Chrysostom seems to have 
understood them thus; and the Romish writers, al- 
most universally have adopted this opinion. " There- 
fore," says Bellarmine, ''it is certain that Paul's 
epistle to the Laodiceans is now lost." ' And their 
opinion is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we 
read, Eamque Laodicensium — that which is of the 
Laodiceans ; but even these words admit of another 
construction. 

Many learned Protestants, also, have embraced the 
same interpretation ; while others suppose that Paul 
here refers to the epistle to the Ephesians, which they 
* See note G. 



268 NO CANONICAL BOOK 

think he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present 
inscription is spurious. But that neither of these opi- 
nions is correct may be rendered very probable. In 
regard to the latter, we have already said as much as 
is necessary ; and that Paul could not intend by the 
language used in the passage under consideration an 
epistle written by himself, will appear by the follow- 
ing arguments. 

1. Paul could not with any propriety of speech 
have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to 
the Laodiceans, an epistle from Laodicea. He cer- 
tainly would have said, rtpo? AooStxEtav, or some such 
thing. Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to 
any individual, or to any society, denominated an 
epistle from them ? 

2. If the epistle referred to in this passage had 
been one written by Paul, it would have been most 
natural for him to call it his epistle, and this would 
have rendered his meaning incapable of misconstruc- 
tion. 

3. All those best qualified to judge of the fact, 
and who were well acquainted with Paul's history 
and writings, never mention any such epistle : neither 
Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac interpreter, knew 
anything of such an epistle of Paul ; and no one 
seems to have had knowledge of any such writing, 
except Marcion, who probably forged it to answer 
his own purposes. But whether Marcion did ac- 
knowledge an epistle different from all that we have 
in the Canon, rests on the authority of Epiphanius, 
who wrote a criticism on the apostolicon of Mar- 
cion ; but as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a dif- 
ferent story. It is of little importance to decide 



OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 269 

which of these testimonies is most credible : for Mar- 
cion's authority, at best, is worthless on such a sub- 
ject. 

But it may be asked, To what epistle then does 
Paul refer? To this inquiry various answers have 
been given, and perhaps nothing determinate can 
now be said. Theophylact was of opinion, that Paul's 
first epistle to Timothy was here intended. But 
this is not probable. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures that 
it was the first epistle of John, which he supposes 
was written from Laodicea. Others have thought 
that it was the epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it 
seems safest, in such a case, where testimony is de- 
ficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and 
to believe that it was an epistle written by the Lao- 
diccans, probably to himself, which he had sent to 
the Colossians, together with his own epistle, for their 
perusaJ. 

That the epistle which is now extant is not the 
same as that which formerly existed, at least as early 
as the fourth century, is evident from the quotations 
from the ancient epistle, by Epiphanius ; for no such 
words as he cites are in that now extant. But can- 
dour requires that it be mentioned that they are con- 
tained in the epistle to the Ephesians. Let this weigh 
as much as it is worth in favour of the opinion, that 
the apostle, in the passage under consideration, refers 
to the epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion, how- 
ever, is perfectly consistent with our position, that no 
canonical hooh of the New Testament has been lost. 
This proposition, we hope, will now appear to the 
reader sufficiently established. 
23* 



270 RULES FOE DETERMINING 



SECTION XV. 



RULES FOR DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL 

SOME ACCOUNT OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH 

HAVE BEEN LOST ALL OF THEM CONDEMNED BY THE 

FOREGOING RULES — REASON OF THE ABOUNDING OF SUCH 
BOOKS. 

Op the apocryphal books of the New Testament, the 
greater part have long- since sunk into oblivion, but a 
few of them are still extant. All of them can be 
proved to be spurious, or at least not canonical. Their 
claims have so little to support them, that they might 
be left to that oblivion, into which they have so gene- 
rally fallen, were it not that, from time to time, per- 
sons unfriendly to our present Canon bring forward 
these books, and pretend that some of them, at least, 
have as good claims to canonical authority as those 
which are received. It will be satisfactory to the 
reader, therefore, to know the names of these books, 
and to understand the principles on which they have 
been uniformly rejected by the church. 

In the first place, then, I will mention the rules 
laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it 
may be determined that a book is apocryphal, and 
then I will give some account of the books of this 
class which have been lost ; and finally, consider the 
character of those which are still extant. 



WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL. 271 

1. That book is certainly apocryphal which con- 
tains manifest contradictions. 

The reason of this rule is too evident to need any 
elucidation. 

2. That hook is apocryphal, which contains any 
doctrine or history, plainly contrary to those which 
are certainly known to be true. 

This rule is also too clear to require anything to 
be said in confirmation of its propriety. 

3. That book is apocryphal which contains any- 
thing ludicrous or trifling, or which abounds in silly 
and fabulous stories. 

This rule is not only true, but of great importance, 
in this inquiry; as on examination it will be found, 
that the largest part of apocryphal books may be 
detected by the application of this single rule. 

4. That book is apocryphal which mentions things 
of a date much later than the time in which the au- 
thor, under whose name it goes, lived. 

This rule does not apply to predictions of future 
events, which events occurred long after the death of 
the prophet ; but to a reference to facts, or names of 
places, or persons, as existing when the book was 
written, which are known to have existed, only at a 
period long since the time when the supposed author 
lived. The rule will be better understood, if illus- 
trated by particular examples. The book entitled, 
" The Constitutions of the Apostles," speaks of the 
controversy which arose in the third century, respect- 
ing the rebaptization of heretics, therefore, it is not 
the work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been 
ascribed ; nor was it written in his time, but long 
afterwards. 



272 RULES FOR DETERMINING 

Again, the book under the name of Hegesippus is 
not genuine, for it mentions Constantino and Constan- 
tinople, which had no existence until long after the 
death of Hegesippus. 

Moreover, in " The Constitutions of the Apostles," 
there is mention of rites and ceremonies, relative to 
baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c. which it is certain had 
no existence in the times of the apostles, therefore 
this book was not written by an apostolical man, nor 
in the days of the apostles, but centuries afterwards. 

5. That book is apocryphal, the style of which is 
entirely diiBferent from the known style of the author 
to whom it is ascribed. 

It is easy to counterfeit an author's name, age, 
country, opinions, &c. ; but it will be found almost 
impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is true, 
may vary his style to suit different subjects, but there 
is commonly some peculiarity by which he may be 
distinguished from all others. "Jerome," says Six- 
tus, "writes one way in his epistles, another in his 
controversies, a third in his commentaries ; — one way 
when young, another when old, yet he always so 
writes that you may know him to be the same Je- 
rome still, as a man knows his friend under all the 
various casts and turns of his countenance." Thus 
Augustine says of Cyprian, " His style has a certain 
peculiar face by which it may be known." 

It should be remembered, however, that this rule, 
although it may often furnish a certain detection of 
spurious writings is one which requires much caution 
in the application. There is need of a long and inti- 
mate acquaintance with the style of an author, before 
we are competent to determine whether a book could 



WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCEYPHAL. 273 

have been written by him : and the difference ought 
to be very distinctly marked before we make it the 
ground of any important judgment, respecting the 
genuineness of a work ascribed to him, especially if 
there be external evidence in its favour. In fact, too 
free an application of this rule has led to many errors, 
both in ancient and modern times. 

6. That book is spurious and apocryphal, whose 
idiom and dialect are different from those of the coun- 
try to which the reputed author belonged. 

The idiom and dialect of a language are very dif- 
ferent from the style of an author. Every language 
is susceptible of every variety of style, but the idiom 
is the same in all who use the language: it is the 
peculiarity, not of an individual, but of a whole coun- 
try. But as every writer has a style of his own, 
which cannot easily be imitated by another, so every 
country has an idiom, which other nations, even if they 
learn the language, cannot, without great difficulty, 
acquire. And for the same reason that a writer can- 
not acquire the idiom of a foreign tongue, he cannot 
divest himself of the peculiarites of his own. 

An Englishman can scarcely write and speak the 
French language, so as not to discover by his idiom 
that it is not his vernacular tongue. Hence also, a 
North Briton can be distinguished, not only from the 
peculiarity of his pronunciation, but by his idiom. 
And this is the reason that modern scholars can 
never write Latin, in the manner of the classic au- 
thors. This rule, therefore, is of great importance in 
detecting the spuriousness of a book, when the real 
author lived after the time of the person whose name 
is assumed, or in a country where a different language, 



274 RULES FOR DETERMINING 

or a different dialect was in use. It will be found al- 
most impossible to avoid phrases and modes of speech, 
which were not in use in the time of the person under 
whose name the work is edited : and the attempt at 
imitating an idiom which is not perfectly familiar, 
leads to an affectation and stiffness of manner which 
usually betrays the impostor. The influence of native 
idiom appears nowhere more remarkably than in the 
writings of the New Testament. These books, al- 
though written in the Greek tongue, contain an idiom 
so manifestly different from that of the language in 
common use at that time, that it cannot but be 
observed by all who have even a superficial acquaint- 
ance with Grecian literature. 

The fact is, as has often been observed by learned 
men, that while the words of these books are Greek 
the idiom is Hebrew. The writers had, from their 
infancy, been accustomed to the Syro-Chaldaic lan- 
guage, which is a corruption of the ancient Hebrew. 
Now, this peculiarity of idiom could never have 
been successfully imitated by any native Greek ; nor 
by any one, not early conversant with the vernacular 
tongue of Palestine at that time. When, therefore, 
men of other countries, and other times, undertook 
to publish books under the name of the apostles, the 
imposture was manifest at once, to all capable of 
judging correctly on the subject ; because, although 
they could write in the same language as the apos- 
tles, they could not possibly imitate their idiom. This, 
therefore, furnishes a most important characteristic, 
to distinguish between the genuine writings of the 
apostles and such as are supposititious. 

7. That book is spurious which exhibits a disposi- 



WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL. 275 

tion and temper of mind very different from that of 
the person to whom it is ascribed. 

This rule depends on a principle in human nature 
-well understood, and needs no particular elucidation. 

8. That book is not genuine, which consists princi- 
pally of mere extracts from other books. 

This is also so evident, that it requires no illustra- 
tion. 

9. Those books which were never cited, nor referred 
to as Scripture, by any writer of credit for the first 
four hundred years after the apostles' days, are apo- 
cryphal. 

10. Those books which were expressly rejected by 
the Fathers of the first ages as spurious, and attribu- 
ted by them to heretics, are apocryphal. 

By the application of the foregoing rules, it can be 
shown, that every book which claims canonical au- 
thority, not included in our present Canon, is apo- 
cryphal. When we denominate all books apocryphal 
which are not canonical, we do not mean to reduce 
them all to the same level. A book which is not 
canonical may be a very instructive and useful book. 
As a human composition it may deserve to be highly 
esteemed ; and as the writing of a pious and eminent 
man of antiquity it may claim peculiar respect. 

The ancient method of division was more accurate 
than ours. They divided all books into three classes ; 
first, the canonical ; secondly, the ecclesiastical ; 
and thirdly, the spurious. And there is reason to 
believe that some books which were written without 
the least fraudulent design, by anonymous authors, 
have, by the ignorance of their successors, been as- 
cribed to the wrong persons. 



276 APOCRYPHAL BOOKS 

That the Fathers did sometimes cite apocryphal 
books, in their writings, is true ; but so did Paul cite 
the heathen poets. If these books are sometimes 
mentioned, without any note of disapprobation an- 
nexed, it can commonly be clearly ascertained from 
other places in the same author, that he held them to 
be apocryphal. Thus Origen, in one place, quotes 
" the gospel according to the Hebrews," without any 
expression of disapprobation ; but in another place he 
rejects it as spurious, and declares, " That the church 
receives no more than four gospels." 

Sometimes the Fathers cited these apocryphal 
books, to show that their knowledge was not con- 
fined to their own books, and that they did not reject 
others, through ignorance of their contents. Remark- 
ably to this purpose are the words of Origen. " The 
church," says he, "receives only four gospels: here- 
tics have many, such as the gospel of the Egyptians, 
the gospel of Thomas, &c. : these we read, that we 
may not seem to be ignorant to those who think they 
know something extraordinary, if they are acquaint- 
ed with those things which are recorded in these 
books." To the same purpose speaks Ambrose ; for, 
having mentioned several of these books, he says, 
" We read these that they may not be read by others: 
we read them, that we may not seem ignorant ; we 
read them, not that we receive them, but that we may 
reject them ; and may know what those things are, of 
which they make such a boast." In some instances, 
it seems probable that some of the Fathers took pas- 
sages out of these books, because they were acknow- 
ledged by those against whom they were writing ; be- 



CITED BY THE FATHERS. 277 

ing willing to dispute with them on their own princi- 
ples and to confute them bj their own books. 

It may perhaps be true also, that one or two of the 
Fathers cited passages from these books, because 
they contained facts not recorded in the canonical 
gospels. The apostle John informs us that our Lord 
performed innumerable miracles, besides those which 
he had recorded ; " The which, if they should be writ- 
ten every one, I suppose the world itself could not 
contain the books which should be written." Now, 
some tradition of some of these things would undoubt- 
edly be handed down as low as to the second century, 
and might find its way into some of the apocryphal gos- 
pels, and might be cited by persons who did not be- 
lieve the book to be of canonical authority ; just as we 
refer to any profane author for the proof of such facts 
as are credibly related by them. There is, at least, 
one example of this. Jerome refers to the gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews for a fact ; and yet he most 
explicitly rejects this book as apocryphal. 

The only books which were ever read in the 
churches, besides the canonical, were a few written 
by apostolical men ; which, although not written by 
a plenary inspiration, were the genuine writings of 
the persons whose names they bore, and were pious 
productions, and tended to edification ; such as, the 
"Epistle of Clement," the " Shepherd of Hermas," and 
the "Epistle of Barnabas;" but no spurious books 
were ever read in the churches. 

None of the writings falsely ascribed to Christ and 

his apostles, ever acquired so much authority, as to 

be publicly read in any church, as far as we know. 

Indeed, although the apocryphal books of the New 

24 



278 CAUSES OF THE WRITING 

Testament were very numerous, yet they did not ap- 
pear in the age of the church next after the times of 
the apostles. In the first century no books of this de- 
scription are referred to, unless we suppose that Luke, 
in the beginning of his gospel, intends to speak of 
such. In the second century a few spurious writings 
began to be first put into circulation, as, " the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews;" "the Gospel of Truth," 
used by the Yalentinians ; " the Preaching of Peter ;" 
" the Traditions of Matthias ;" " the Acts of Paul and 
Thecla :" " the Gospel of Marcion ;" " the Revelation 
of Cerinthus ;" and a few others of less note. But in 
the third century the number of apocryphal books 
was considerably increased ; and in the fourth and 
fifth centuries they were exceedingly multiplied. 

If it be inquired, how it happened that so many 
apocryphal books were written, it may confidently be 
answered, that the principal cause was the abound- 
ing of heresies. Almost all the spurious writings, un- 
der the names of the apostles, are the productions of 
heretics, as we learn from the testimony of those Fa- 
thers who have made mention of them. It is however 
true, that some mistaken well-meaning people thought 
that they could add honour to the apostles, or contri- 
bute to the edification of the church, by resorting to 
(what have improperly been called) pious frauds. 
They imagined, also, that they could recommend 
Christianity to the Gentiles, by inventing stories, 
which they rashly pretended were sayings or ac- 
tions of Christ: thus adopting the pernicious max- 
im, so peremptorily denounced by Paul, "that we 
may do evil that good may come ;" or that the good- 
ness of the end will sanctify the badness of the means. 



OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 279 

Of this we have one remarkable example, in the spu- 
rious book still extant, entitled, " the Acts of Paul and 
Thecla," which a certain Asiatic presbyter confessed 
that he had forged, and assigned, as his reason for 
this forgery, that he wished to show respect to Paul. 
But, in connection with this fact, we have satisfactory 
proof of the vigilance of the church, in guarding the 
sacred Canon from corruption ; for the book was no 
sooner published, than a strict inquiry was instituted 
into its origin, and the presbyter mentioned above, 
having been detected as the author, was deprived of 
his ofl&ce in the church. This account is given by 
Tertullian ; and Jerome adds that the detection of 
this forgery was made by the apostle John. 

It is probable, also, that some of these books were 
written without any evil purpose, by weak men, who 
wrote down all the stories they had received by tra- 
dition ; for, no doubt, a multitude of traditions respect- 
ing Christ and his apostles, with extravagant distor- 
tions and additions, would be handed down for several 
generations. 

By all these means, the number of apocryphal 
books of the New Testament was greatly multiplied. 
But by far the greater number of these have perished ; 
yet there is no difficulty in determining, that none 
of them had any just claim to a place in the Canon. 
By one or more of the rules laid down above, they 
can all be demonstrated to have been apocryphal : 
and indeed most of them are never mentioned by any 
ancient author, in any other light than as spurious 
writings. There is a famous decree of pope Gela- 
sius, in which at least twenty-five of these books are 



280 DECREE OF GELASIUS. 

named, and declared to be apocryphal. It is not cer- 
tain, indeed, whether this decree ought to be ascribed 
to Gelasius, or to one of his predecessors, Damasus ; 
but there can be no doubt that it is very ancient. It 
is by most supposed to have been formed in the coun- 
cil which met at Rome, A. D. 494. A translation of 
this decree, extracted from Jones, will be found in the 
notes at the end of the volume.* 

* See Note F. 



LETTER OF ABGARUS. 281 



SECTION XVI. 



APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH ARE STILL EXTANT — LETTER 
OF ABGARUS KING OF EDESSA TO JESUS, AND HIS AN- 
SWER — EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS LETTERS OF PAUL 

TO SENECA PROTEVANGELION OP JAMES THE GOS- 
PEL OF OUR saviour's INFANCY — THE ACTS OF PILATE 
THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 

We come now to consider those apocryphal books 
which are still extant, and concerning which, there- 
fore, we can speak more particularly. 

The first of these is, " the letter of Abgarus, king 
of Edessa, addressed to Jesus, and sent by his footman 
Ananias." 

EuSEBius is the first who makes mention of this 
epistle, and the sum of his account is, that our Sa- 
vioui''s miraculous works drew innumerable persons 
to him, from the most remote countries, to be healed 
of their diseases ; — that Abgarus, a famous king be- 
yond the Euphrates, wrote to him, because he was 
afflicted with a malady incurable by human art. Our 
Lord promised to send one of his disciples to him, 
and Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples, was sent 
by Thomas after the ascension of Jesus, by an inti- 
mation given him from heaven. For the truth of this 
story, Eusebius appeals to the public records of the 
city of Edessa, where, he says, all the transactions of 
24* 



282 LETTER OF ABGARUS. 

the reign of Abgarus are preserved in the Syriac 
language , out of which he translated these epistles, 
and the accompanying history. He proceeds to re- 
late that Thaddeus having come to Edessa wrought 
many miracles, and healed many that were diseased. 
Abgarus, supposing that this was the person whom 
Christ had, in his letter, promised to send to him, as 
soon as Thaddeus was introduced to him, perceiving 
something extraordinary in his countenance, fell down 
before him, at which his nobles were greatly surprised. 
The king having inquired whether he was the person 
sent by Christ, he answered, that on account of the 
faith of Christ he was sent, and assured him that all 
things should be according to his faith. To which the 
king replied, that he believed so much in Christ, that 
he was resolved, had it not been for fear of the Ro- 
mans, to have made war with the Jews for crucify- 
ing him. Thaddeus informed him of the ascension of 
Christ to his Father. The king replied, I believe in 
him, and in his Father also : on which the apostle 
said, I lay my hand on you in the name of the Lord 
Jesus Christ ; and the king was instantly cured of his 
disease. He also cured others who were diseased ; 
and, on the morrow, the king ordered all the city to 
meet together, to hear the apostle preach. The king 
offered him gold and silver, which he refused, saying, 
" We have left our own, and should we take that which 
is another's?" 

These epistles are also mentioned by Ephrem, the 
Syrian, who was a deacon in the church of Edessa, 
in the latter end of the fourth century. His account 
of this matter, as given by Dr. Grabe, is as follows : 
"Blessed be your city, and mother Edessa, which 



LETTER OF ABGARUS. 283 

was expressly blessed by the mouth of the Lord, and 
his disciples, but our apostles ; for when Abgarus the 
king, who built that city, thought fit to send and ac- 
knowledge Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all, in 
his pilgrimage on earth ; saying, I have heard all 
things which are done by you, and how much you 
have sufi*ered by the Jews, who contemn you, where- 
fore, come hither, and take up your residence with 
me ; I have a little city which shall be equally yours 
and mine ; hereupon the Lord admiring his faith 
sent by messengers a blessing unto the city, which 
should abide for ever, till the Holy One be revealed 
from heaven, even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and 
God of God." 

No other writer of the first four centuries makes 
any explicit mention of this epistle ; but Procopius, 
in the sixth century, in his history of the Persian war, 
relates, " That Abgarus had been long afflicted with 
the gout, and finding no relief from the physicians, 
but hearing of the miracles of Christ, sent to him, 
and desired that he would come and live with him ; 
and that upon his receiving an answer from Christ, 
he was immediately cured ; and that our Saviour, in 
the end of his letter, gave Abgarus assurance, that his 
city should never be taken by enemies." 

EvAGRius, in the latter end of the sixth century, 
appeals to this account of Procopius, and confirms 
the story that the city never should be taken by ene- 
mies, by a reference to some facts, particularly the 
failure of Chosroes to take the city, when he laid 
siege to it. But this author adds a circumstance, 
which has much the air of a fable, that this failure 
pf capturing the city was brought about by a picture 



284 LETTER OP CHRIST 

of Christ's face, which he had impressed on a hand- 
kerchief, and sent to Abgarus, at his earnest request. 

Cedrenus adds to all the rest that Christ sealed 
his letter with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew let- 
ters, the meaning of which was, "the divine miracle of 
God is seen." 

Among the moderns, a very large majority are of 
opinion that this epistle is apocryphal. Indeed, the 
principal advocates of its genuineness are a few 
learned Englishmen, particularly Dr. Parker, Dr. 
Cave, and Dr. G-rabe, but they do not speak confi- 
dently on the subject ; while on the other side are 
found almost the whole body of learned critics, both 
Protestants and Komanists. Now, that this epistle 
and history existed in the archives of Edessa in the 
time of Eusebius, there is no room to doubt, unless 
we would accuse this respectable historian of the 
most deliberate falsehood ; for he asserts that he him- 
self had taken them thence. His words, however, 
must not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had 
himself been at Edessa, and had translated the epis- 
tle from the Syriac ; for there is reason to believe 
that he never visited that place, and that he was not 
acquainted with the Syriac tongue. The words will 
be sufficiently verified, if this document was trans- 
lated and transmitted to him through an authentic 
channel from Edessa. 

It is probable, therefore, that this story has some 
foundation in truth. Probably Thaddeus, or some 
other apostle, did preach the gospel and perform 
miracles in that city ; but how much of the story is 
credible, it is not now easy to determine. But I 



TO ABGARUS SPURIOUS. 285 

think it may be shown that this epistle was never 
penned by Jesus Christ, for the following reasons : 

1. It is never mentioned in the genuine gospels ; 
nor referred to by any writer of the first three 
centuries. 

2. If this account had been true, there never could 
have been any hesitation among the apostles about 
preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. 

3. It is unreasonable to believe that if Christ had 
been applied to by this king for healing, he would 
have deferred a cure until he could send an apostle 
after his ascension. This does not correspond with 
the usual conduct of the benevolent Saviour. 

4. It seems to have been a tradition universally re- 
ceived that Christ never wrote anything himself ; and 
if he had written this letter, it would have been more 
prized than any other portion of Scripture, and would 
have been placed in the Canon,. and everywhere read 
in the churches. 

5. After it was published by Eusebius, it never 
gained so much credit as to be received as a genuine 
writing of Christ. As it was unknown in the first 
three centuries, so in the fourth when published it 
was scarcely noticed by any writer. 

6. The plain mention of our Lord's ascension in 
the epistle, is an evidence of its spuriousness ; for in 
all his discourses, recorded by the evangelists, there 
is no such explicit declaration of this event ; and it 
cannot be supposed that he would speak more expli- 
citly to a heathen king than to the persons chosen 
to be witnesses of his actions, and dispensers of his 
doctrine. 

There is, however, nothing in the sentiments ex- 



286 PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS. 

pressed in this epistle unsuitable to the humble and 
benevolent character of the Saviour ; but learned men 
have supposed, that there are several internal evi- 
dences of spuriousness besides the one just mentioned. 
I conceive, however, that the reasons already assigned 
will be considered as sufficient to prove that this letter 
forms no part of the sacred Canon. It is excluded 
by several of the rules laid down above ; and even 
if it were genuine, it seems that it ought rather to be 
received as a private communication than as intended 
for the edification of the whole church. The history 
which accompanies the letter has several strong marks 
of spuriousness, but as this does not claim to be canoni- 
cal, we need not pursue the subject further. It may, 
however, not be amiss to remark that the story of the 
picture of our Saviour impressed on a handkerchief 
and sent to Abgarus, is enough of itself to condemn 
the history as fabulous. This savours not of the sim- 
plicity of Christ, and has no parallel in anything re^ 
corded in the gospel. 

II. There is now extant an epistle under the title 
of " Paul to the Laodiceans," and it is known that as 
early as the beginning of the second century, a work 
existed under this name which was received by Mar- 
CION the heretic. But there is good reason for think- 
ing that the epistle now extant is an entirely different 
work from the one which anciently existed ; for the 
present epistle does not contain the words which 
Epiphanius has cited from that used by Marcion; 
and what renders this clear is, that the ancient epis- 
tle was heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of 
the church with one consent ; whereas, the one which 
we now have contains notliing erroneous ; for it is a 



PAUL'S LETTERS TO SENECA. 28T 

mere compilation from the other epistles of Paul with 
a few additional sentences which contain no heretical 
doctrine. As the epistle is short, a translation of it 
will be given in the notes at the end of the volume.* 

Concerning the ancient epistle under this title Phi- 
lastrius says, ''That some were of opinion that it 
was written by Luke ; but because the heretics have 
inserted some (false) things, it is for that reason not 
read in the churches. Though it be read by some, 
yet there are no more than thirteen epistles of Paul 
read to the people in the church, and sometimes that 
to the Hebrews." " There are some," says Jerome, 
*' who read an epistle, under the name of Paul to the 
Laodiceans, but is rejected by all." And Epiphanius 
calls it " an epistle not written by the apostles." The 
epistle now extant never having been received into 
the ancient catalogues, read in the churches, or cited 
as Scripture, is of course apocryphal. It is also 
proved not to be genuine, because it is almost entirely 
an extract from the other epistles of Paul. 

III. Another writing which has been ascribed to 
Paul is, " Six Letters to Seneca," with which are 
connected "Eight Letters from Seneca to Paul." 
These letters are of undoubted antiquity, and several 
learned men of the Jesuits have defended them as 
genuine, and allege that they are similar to other 
epistles received into the Canon which were addressed 
to individuals. That such letters were in existence as 
early as the fourth century appears from a passage 
in Jerome's Catalogue of Illustrious Men, where he 
gives the following account of Seneca : " Lucius An- 
naeus Seneca, born at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a 
* See Note G. 



288 PAUL'S LETTERS 

Stoic, uncle of Lucan the poet, was a person of very 
extraordinary temperance, whom I should not have 
ranked in my Catalogue of Saints, but that I was de- 
termined to it by the "epistles of Paul to Seneca," 
and " Seneca to Paul," which are read by many. In 
which, though he was at that time tutor to Nero, and 
made a very considerable figure, he saith he wishes 
to be of the same repute among his countrymen, as 
Paul was among the Christians. He was slain by 
Nero two years before Peter and Paul were honoured 
with martyrdom." 

There is also a passage in Augustine's 54th epistle 
to Macedonius, which shows that he was not unac- 
quainted with these letters. His words are, "It is 
true, which Seneca, who lived in the times of the 
apostles, and who wrote certain epistles to Paul which 
are now read, said, ' he who will hate those who are 
wicked must hate all men.' " 

There is no authentic evidence that these letters 
have been noticed by any of the rest of the Fathers. 
Indeed, it has been too hastily asserted by several 
eminent critics, that Augustine believed that the let- 
ters of Paul to Seneca were genuine ; but the fact is, 
that he makes no mention whatever of Paul's letters ; 
he only mentions those of Seneca to Paul. The pro- 
bability is that he never saw them, for had he been 
acquainted with them, it is scarcely credible that he 
would have said nothing respecting them in this 
place. 

Neither does Jerome say anything from which it 
can with any certainty be inferred that he received 
these letters as genuine. He gives them the title by 
which they were known, and says they were read 



TO SENECA SPUKIOUS. 289 

by many ; but if he had believed them to be genuine 
letters of Paul, would he not have said much more ? 
Would he not have claimed for them a place among 
Paul's canonical epistles ? And what proves that this 
Father did not believe them to be genuine is, that in 
this same book he gives a full account of Paul and his 
writings, and yet does not make the least mention of 
these letters to Seneca. 

But the style of these letters sufficiently demon- 
strates that they are not genuine. Nothing can be 
more dissimilar to the style of Paul and of Seneca, 
than that of these epistles. " The style of those 
attributed to Seneca," says Dupin, ^'is barbarous, and 
full of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue." 
"And those attributed to Paul," says Mr. Jeremiah 
Jones, " have not the least tincture of the gravity of 
the apostle, but are rather compliments than instruc- 
tions." The subscriptions of these letters are very 
dijQferent from those used by these writers in their 
genuine epistles. Seneca is made to salute Paul by 
the name of brother ; an appellation not in use among 
the heathen, but peculiar to Christians. By several 
of these letters it would appear that Paul was at Bome 
when they were written, but from others the contrary 
may be inferred. It seems strange if they were both 
in the city, that they should date their letters by 
consulships ; and, indeed, this method of dating letters 
was wholly unknown among the Bomans ; and there 
are several mistakes in them in regard to the con- 
suls in authority at the time. 

Their trifling contents is also a strong argument of 
spuriousness. " They contain nothing," says Dupin, 
" worthy either of Seneca or of Paul ; scarcely one 
25 



290 PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES. 

moral sentiment in the letters of Seneca, nor anything 
of Christianity in those of Paul." What can be more 
unlike Paul than the fifth letter, which is occupied 
with a servile apology for putting his own name before 
Seneca's, in the inscription of his letters, and declar- 
ing this to be contrary to Christianity ? These let- 
ters, moreover, contain some things which are not true, 
as "that the emperor Nero was delighted and sur- 
prised at the thoughts in Paul's epistles to the 
churches : — and that Nero was both an admirer and 
favourer of Christianity." But very incongruous with 
this, and also with Paul's character is that which he 
is made to say in his fourth epistle, where he entreats 
Seneca to say no more to the emperor respecting him 
or Christianity, lest he should offend him. Yet, in 
the sixth letter he advises Seneca to take convenient 
opportunities of insinuating the Christian religion, and 
things favourable to it to Nero and his family. But 
for further particulars the reader is referred to the 
epistles themselves, a translation of which may be 
found in "Jones on the Canon." 

ly. There is extant a spurious gospel entitled, 
the " Protevangelion of James," in the Grreek lan- 
guage, which was brought from the east by Postell, 
who asserts that it is held to be genuine by the ori- 
ental churches, and is publicly read in their assemblies 
with the other Scriptures. This learned man, more- 
over, undertakes the defence of this gospel as the 
genuine production of the apostle James, and insists 
that it ought at least to have a place in the Hagiogra- 
jpha. But his arguments are weak, and have been 
fully refuted by Fabricius and Jones. 

This apocryphal book, however, appears to be 



PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES. 291 

ancient ; or at least there was formerly a book under 
the same name, but that it is not canonical is easily 
proved. It is quoted by none of the ancient Fathers 
except Epiphanius, who explicitly rejects it as apo- 
cryphal. It is found in none of the catalogues, and 
was never read in the primitive church. It contains 
many false and trifling stories ; and in its style and 
composition is a perfect contrast to the genuine gospels 
of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. From the 
Hebraisms with which it abounds, it has been supposed 
to be the work of some person who was originally a 
Jew; but as it was anciently used by the Gnostics, 
there can be little doubt that the author when he 
wrote, belonged to some one of the heretical sects 
which so abounded in primitive times. 

There is also another work which has a near affinity 
with this, called "The Nativity of Mary." And 
although these books possess a similar character, and 
contain many things in common, yet in other points 
they are contradictory to each other, as they both 
are to the evangelical history. The internal evi- 
dence is itself sufficient to satisfy any candid reader 
of their apocryphal character.* 

V. The largest apocryphal gospel extant is entitled 
" The Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy." There is 
also remaining a fragment of a gospel ascribed to 
Thomas, which probably was originally no other than 
the one just mentioned. These gospels were never 
supposed to be canonical by any Christian writer. 
They were forged and circulated by the Gnostics, and 
altered from time to time according to their caprice. 

* Both of these apocryphal works may be seen in the second 
volume of Jones' learned work on the Canon. 



292 GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S INFANCY. 

The " Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy," seems to 
have been known to Mohammed, or rather to his 
assistants ; for according to his own account, in the 
Koran, he was unable to read. Many of the things 
related in the Koran, respecting Christianity, are 
from this apocryphal work. This gospel is condemned 
by almost every rule laid down for the detection of 
spurious writings ; and if all other evidence were want- 
ing, the silly, trifling and ludicrous stories, with which 
it is stuffed, would be enough to demonstrate, that it 
was spurious and apocryphal. To give the curious 
reader an opportunity of contrasting these apocryphal 
legends with the gravity and simplicity of the genuine 
gospels, I have inserted some of the miracles recorded 
in this book, at the end of the volume.* 

It seems highly probable that this " Gospel of the 
Saviour's Infancy," and the book of the "Nativity of 
Mary," were originally parts of the same work; an 
evidence of which is, that in the Koran, there is a 
continued and connected story, which is taken partly 
from the one, and partly from the other, f The same 
thing is proved by the fact, that Jerome in one place 
speaks of a preface which he had written to the " Gos- 
pel of our Saviour's Infancy," in which he condemns 
it, because it contradicts the gospel of John, and in 
another place, he uses the same words, and says they 
are in the preface to the "Nativity of Mary." 

Both these apocryphal books have been formerly 
ascribed to Lucius Charinus, who lived in the latter 
part of the third century, and who rendered himself 
famous, by forging spurious works under the name of 
the apostles. 

* See note H. f See Koran, chap. iii. 



THE ACTS OF PILATE. 293 

VI. There is another apocryphal gospel, entitled, 
" the Gospel of Nicodemus," or, " the Acts of Pilate," 
which was probably forged about the same time as the 
one last treated of, and it is very likely by the same 
person. That it was the custom for the governors of 
provinces in the Roman empire, to transmit to the em- 
perors an account of all remarkable occurrences under 
their government, is capable of proof from the Roman 
history, and Eusebius expressly informs us that this 
was customary : and Philo Judasus speaks of " the 
daily memoirs which were transmitted to Caligula, 
from Alexandria." 

That Pontius Pilate transmitted some account of 
the crucifixion of Christ, and of his wonderful works, 
is, therefore, in itself, highly probable ; but it is ren- 
dered certain, by the public appeal made to these 
"Acts of Pilate," both by Justin Martyr and Ter- 
TULLIAN, in their Apologies ; the one addressed to the 
Roman emperor Antoninus Pius, and the other pro- 
bably to the Roman senate. The words of Justin 
Martyr are, " And of the truth of these facts you 
may be informed, out of the acts which were written 
by Pontius Pilate." And in the same apology he 
refers to these acts for proof, " That our Saviour cured 
all sorts of diseases, and raised the dead." 

Tertullian, in two places of his Apology, appeals 
to records which were transmitted to Tiberius from 
Jerusalem. His testimony is remarkable in both 
places, and deserves to be transcribed: "Tiberius," 
says he, " in whose time the Christian name became 
first known in the world, having received information 
from Palestine in Syria, that Jesus Christ had there 

given manifest proof of the truth of his divinity. 
25* 



294 THE ACTS OF PILATE. 

communicated it to the senate, insisting upon it as his 
prerogative, that thej should assent to his opinion in 
that matter ; but the senate not approving it refused. 
Caesar continued in the same opinion, threatening those 
who were accusers of the Christians." 

In the other passage, after enumerating many of 
the miracles of Christ, he adds, "All these things, 
Pilate himself, who was in his conscience for follow- 
ing Christ, transmitted to Tiberius Csesar ; and even 
the Caesars themselves had been Christians, if it had 
been consistent with their secular interests." Both 
Eusebius and Jerome, cite this testimony of Tertul- 
lian as authentic. It seems therefore certain, that 
some account of Christ and his actions was trans- 
mitted by Pilate to the emperor. "For," to use the 
words of an eminent man, " Tertullian, though a 
Christian writer, durst never have presumed to impose 
upon the senate themselves, with such a remarkable 
story, if he was not able to prove it ; and that he was, 
is evident from Justin Martyr, who often appeals to 
the Acts of Pilate, concerning the history of our Sa- 
viour — That Pilate did send such acts is evident, for 
scarce any man, much less such a man as Justin Mar- 
tyr, would have been so foolish, or so confident, as to 
affirm a thing in which it would be so easy to convict 
him of falsehood."* 

And another, speaking of the same thing, says, 
" They were men of excellent learning and judg- 
ment ; but no man who could write an apology, 
can be supposed to have so little understanding, as 
to appeal to that account which Pilate sent to Tibe- 
rius, concerning the resurrection of Christ, in apol- 
*Dr. Parker. 



THE ACTS OF PILATE. 295 

ogies, dedicated to the Roman emperor himself, and 
to the senate, if no such account had ever been sent."* 

It does not follow, however, that these Fathers had 
ever seen these Acts, or that they were ever seen by 
any Christian. During the reigns of heathen em- 
perors, Christians could have no access to the ar- 
chives of the nation ; but the fact of the existence 
of such a record might have been, and probably was, 
a matter of public notoriety; otherwise, we never 
can account for the confident appeal of these learned 
and respectable writers. There is no difiiculty in 
conceiving how such a fact might have been certainly 
known to these Fathers, without supposing that they 
had seen the record. As the learned Casaubon says, 
" Some servants or officers of one of the Caesars, who 
were converted to Christianity, and had opportunity 
of searching the public records at Rome, gave this 
account to some Christians, from whom Justin and 
Tertullian had it." 

It may seem to be an objection to the existence of 
such Acts, that they were never made public when 
the emperors became Christians ; but it is altogether 
probable, that they were destroyed through the ma- 
lice of the senate, or of some Roman emperor who 
was hostile to Christianity. They who took so much 
pains to destroy the writings of Christians, would not 
suffer such a monument of the truth of Christianity 
to remain in their own palace. But as to those Acts 
of Pilate which are now extant, no one supposes that 
they are genuine. They have every mark of being 
spurious. The external and internal evidence is 

* Dr. Jenkin. 



296 MOTIVES FOR THE FORGERY 

equally against them ; and it would be a waste of time 
to enter into any discussion of this point. 

It may, however, be worth while to inquire into the 
motives which probably led some mistaken Christian 
to forge such a narrative. And there seems to have 
been two : first, to have it in his power to show the 
record, to which the Fathers had so confidently re- 
ferred. The heathen adversaries might say, after the 
destruction of the genuine Acts of Pilate, Where is the 
document to which this appeal has been made ? let it 
be produced. And some man,, thinking that he could 
serve the cause of Christianity by forging Acts, 
under the name of Pilate, was induced through a mis- 
taken zeal, to write this narrative. 

But there was another reason which probably had 
some influence on this fact. About the close of the 
third century, the heathen had forged and published 
a writing called " The Acts of Pilate," the object of 
which was to render the Christians odious and con- 
temptible to the public, by foul calumnies against 
their Founder and his apostles. Of this fact, EuSE- 
BIUS gives us express and particular information. 
" From whence," says he, " the forgery of these is 
manifestly detected, who have lately published cer- 
tain Acts against our Saviour. In which, first, the 
very time which is assigned to them discovers the 
imposture ; for those things ' which they have impu- 
dently forged, to have come to pass at our Saviour's 
crucifixion, are said to have occurred in the fourth 
consulship of Tiberius, which coincides with the 
seventh of his reign ; at which time, it is certain, 
Pilate was not yet come into Judea, if any credit is 
due to Josephus, who expressly says, that Pilate was 



OP THESE ACTS. 297 

not constituted governor of Judea until the twelfth 
year of Tiberius."* And in another place he says, 
" Seeing therefore that this writer, (Josephus) who 
was himself a Jew, has related such things in his 
history concerning John the Baptist and the Saviour, 
what can they possibly say for themselves, to prevent 
being convicted of the most impudent forgery, who 
wrote those things against John and Christ." And 
in the ninth book of his ecclesiastical history, this 
writer gives us information, still more particular, re- 
specting this malicious forgery. "At length, (the 
heathen) having forged certain Acts of Pilate, con- 
cerning our Saviour, which were full of all sorts of 
blasphemy against Christ, they caused them, by the 
decree of Maximinus, to be dispersed through all 
parts of the empire ; commanding by letters, that 
they should be published to all persons, in every place, 
both in cities and country places ; and that school- 
masters should put them into the hands of their chil- 
dren, and oblige them to learn them by heart, instead 
of their usual lessons." 

Here it may be observed, that while this impudent 
forgery clearly shows with what malicious efforts the 
attempt was made to subvert the gospel, it proves at 
the same time, that there had existed a document 
under the name of " The Acts of Pilate." Now, the 
circulation of such an impious piece of blasphemy, 
probably instigated Charinus, or whoever was the 
author of these Acts, to counteract them by a work 
of another kind, under the same name. How this 
book came to be called, " The Gospel of Nicodemus," 
will appear by the subscription annexed to it, in which 
* Euseb. Ecc. Hist, lib, I. c. 9, 11. 



298 ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 

it is said, " The emperor Theodosius the great, found 
at Jerusalem, in the hall of Pontius Pilate, among the 
public records, the things which were transacted in 
the nineteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the 
Romans — being a history written in Hebrew by Nico- 
demus, of what happened after our Saviour's cruci- 
fixion." And if this subscription be no part of the 
original work, still it may have occasioned this title ; 
or it may have originated in the fact, that much is 
said about Nicodemus in the story which is here told. 
But even if we had the original Acts of Pilate, or 
some history of Nicodemus, it needs no proof that 
they could have no just claim to a place in the 
Canon. 

yil. The last apocryphal book which I shall men- 
tion, is that entitled " The Acts of Paul and Thecla." 
There is no doubt but that this book is apocryphal. 
It was so considered by all the Fathers who have 
mentioned it. Tertullian says respecting it, "But 
if any read the apocryphal books of Paul, and thence 
defend the right of women to teach and baptize, by 
the example of Thecla, let them consider that a 
certain presbyter of Asia, who forged that book, 
under the name of Paul, being convicted of forgery, 
confessed that he did it out of respect to Paul, and so 
left his place."* And Jerome, in his life of Luke, 
says, "The Acts of Paul and Thecla, with the whole 
story of the baptized lion, I reckon among the apo- 
cryphal Scriptures." And in the decree of Pope 
Gelasius, it is asserted, " That the ' Acts of Thecla 
and Paul' is apocryphal." 

It is manifest, however, that the primitive Chris- 
* Tertull. De Baptismo. 



ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 299 

tians gave credit to a story respecting Paul and 
Thecla, on which this book is founded : for it is often 
referred to as a history well known and commonly 
believed. Thus Cyprian, or some ancient writer 
under his name, says, "Help us, Lord, as thou 
didst help the apostles in their imprisonment, Tiiecla 
amidst the flames, Paul in his persecutions, and Peter 
amidst the waves of the sea." And again, "Deliver 
me, Lord, as thou didst deliver Thecla, when in the 
midst of the amphitheatre she was in conflict with the 
wild beasts." Eusebius mentions a woman by this 
name, but he places her long after the apostle Paul, 
and she is, therefore, supposed to be another person. 
Epiphanius relates, "That when Thecla met Paul, 
she determined against marriage, although she was 
then engaged to a very agreeable young man."* Au- 
gustine refers to the same thing, and says, " By a 
discourse of Paul's, at Iconium, he incited Thecla to 
a resolution of perpetual virginity, although she was 
then actually engaged to be married." Many others 
of the Fathers speak of Thecla as of a person whose 
history was well known. And among the moderns, 
Baronius, Locrinus, and Grabe, look upon this history 
as true and genuine, written in the apostolic age, and 
containing nothing superstitious or unsuitable to that 
time. But none have ventured to assert that these 
Acts ought to have a place in the Canon. 

No doubt the book now extant is greatly altered 
from that ancient history referred to by the Fathers, 
and probably the original story was founded on some 
tradition which had a foundation in truth ; but what 
the truth is, it is impossible now to discover among 
* Epiph. Haer. Ixviii. 



300 ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 

sucli a mass of fables and ridiculous stories as the 
book contains. As it now stands, it contains numer- 
ous things wbicb are false in fact ; others which are 
inconsistent with the canonical Scriptures, and some 
totally incompatible with the true character of Paul. 
Moreover, it is favourable to several superstitious 
practices which had no existence in the apostles' 
days ; and finally, the forgery was acknowledged as 
it relates to the ancient Acts, and those now existiug 
cannot be more genuine than the original ; but to 
these many things have been added of a silly and 
superstitious kind. 



UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 301 



SECTION XVII 



NO PART OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION HANDED DOWN 
BY UNWRITTEN TRADITION. 

In the former part of this work it was seen that it 
was not only necessary to show that the apocryphal 
writings had no right to a place in the sacred volume, 
but that there was no additional revelation which had 
been handed down by oral tradition. The same 
necessity devolves upon us in relation to the New 
Testament; for while it is pretty generally agreed 
by all Christians what books should be received into 
the Canon, there is a large society which strenuously 
maintains that besides the revelation contained in the 
divine record written by the apostles and their assist- 
ants, by the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
there is a further revelation consisting of such things 
as were received from the mouth of Christ himself 
while upon earth, or taught to the churches by his in- 
spired apostles, which were not by them nor in their 
time committed to writing, but which have come down 
to us by unbroken tradition. 

The importance of this inquiry is manifest ; for if, 

in addition to the written word, there are important 

doctrines and necessary sacraments of the church 

which have come down by tradition, it would be a 

26 



302 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

perilous thing for us to remain ignorant of those 
things which God has enjoined, or to deprive ourselves 
of the benefits to be derived from those means of grace, 
which he has instituted for the edification and salva- 
tion of the church. But seeing traditions are much 
more liable to alteration and corruption than written 
documents, it is very necessary that we should be on 
our guard against imposition ; and if it is a duty to 
exercise much care and diligence in distinguishing 
between inspired books and such as are spurious, it 
cannot be less incumbent to ascertain first whether 
any part of God's revealed will has been handed down 
by tradition only, and next to learn accurately what 
those things are which have been thus communicated. 
And as there are apocryphal books which claim a 
place in the Canon, so doubtless there would be apo- 
cryphal traditions, if any truths had been conveyed to 
the church through this channel. But if there be no 
satisfactory evidence of any such revelation having come 
down to us, nor any possibility of ascertaining what 
proceeded from the apostles, and what from the fancy 
and superstition of men, then we are right in refusing 
the high claims of tradition, and adhering inflexibly 
to the written word, " which is able," through faith, 
" to make us wise unto salvation." 

This doctrine of traditions is most convenient and 
favourable to the church of Rome in all her contro- 
versies with Protestants and others ; for whatever she 
may assert as an article of faith, or teach as a part of 
Christian duty, although there be no vestige of it in. 
the word of God, may readily be established by tra- 
dition. For as the church alone has the keeping of 
this body of oral law, she only is the proper judge of 



OP UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 303 

what it contains, and indeed can make it to suit her- 
self. If we should concede to the Romanists what 
they claim on this point, the controversy with them 
might well be brought to an end, and all we should 
have to do, would be to yield implicit faith to what- 
ever they might please to teach us. And even if we 
should be required to believe and practise, in direct 
opposition to the plain declarations of holy Scripture, 
yet, as the true interpretation of Scripture on this 
plan is only in the hands of the infallible head of 
the church, and is indeed understood by means of 
unwritten traditions, we must not trust to our own 
understanding in the most evident matters, nor even 
to our own senses, although several of them should 
concur in giving us notice of some fact. Now, be- 
fore we give ourselves up to be led blindly in such 
a way as this, it behoves us diligently and impartially 
to inquire, whether God has required of us this im- 
plicit submission to men. We ought to be assured 
that their authority over our faith and conscience 
has a divine warrant for its exercise ; and especially 
we should be satisfied, on sufiicient grounds, that 
these unwritten traditions, on which the whole fabric 
rests, are truly the commands of God ; for if they are 
not, we have the highest authority for rejecting them. 
And if their claim to a divine origin cannot be made 
out clearly, they cannot in reason bind us to obedi- 
ence ; for when God gives a law he promulgates it 
with sufficient clearness that all whom it concerns may 
know what is required of them. 

To exhibit fairly the true point of controversy on 
this subject, it will be requisite to make several pre- 



804 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

iiminary observations, that it may be clearly under- 
stood what we admit and what we deny. 

1. In the first place then, it is readily admitted 
that a law revealed from heaven and communicated 
to us orally, with clear evidence of its origin, is as 
binding as if written ever so often. When God ut- 
tered the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, in the 
midst of thunderings and lightnings, it surely was as 
obligatory upon the hearers, as after he had written 
them on tables of stone. It is a dictate of common 
sense, that it is a matter of indifference how a divine 
revelation is communicated, provided it come to us 
properly authenticated. 

2. Again, it is conceded, that for a long time there 
was no other method of transmitting the revelations 
received from heaven, from generation to genera- 
tion, but by oral tradition, and such external memo- 
rials as aided in keeping up the remembrance of im- 
portant transactions. As far as appears books were 
unknown, and letters not in use, until a considerable 
time after the flood. During the long period which 
preceded the time of Moses, all revelations must have 
been handed down by tradition. But while this con- 
cession is willingly made, it ought in connection to 
be remarked, that this mode was then used because 
no other existed ; and that, in the early ages of the 
world, the longevity of the patriarchs rendered that 
a comparatively safe channel of communication 
which would now be most uncertain ; and notwith- 
standing this advantage, the fact was, that in every 
instance, as far as we are informed, in which divine 
truth was committed to tradition, it was utterly lost, 
or soon became so corrupted by foreign mixtures, 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 305 

that it was impossible to ascertain what part of the 
mass contained a revelation from God. It is there- 
fore the plausible opinion of some, that writing was 
revealed from heaven, for the very purpose of avoid- 
ing the evil which had been experienced, and that 
there might be a certain vehicle for all divine com- 
munications : and it is certain, that all that we know 
of the history of alphabetical writing, leads us to con- 
nect its origin with the commencement of written re- 
velations. 

It is, therefore, not an improbable supposition, that 
God taught letters to Moses for the express purpose 
of conveying, by this means, his laws to distant ages, 
without alteration ; and it deserves to be well con- 
sidered, that after the command was given to Moses, 
to write in a book the laws and statutes delivered to 
him, nothing was left to oral tradition, as has been 
shown in the former part of this work. 

3. It will be granted also, that tradition, especially 
when connected with external memorials, is sufficient 
to transmit, through a long lapse of time, the know- 
ledge of particular events, or of transactions of a very 
simple nature. 

Thus it may be admitted, that if the gospels had 
not come down to us, we might by tradition be as- 
sured that Christ instituted the eucharist as a memo- 
rial of his death ; for, from the time of its institution, 
it has, in every successive age, and in many countries, 
been celebrated to perpetuate the remembrance of that 
event. And it is not credible that such a tradition 
should be uniform at all times, and everywhere, and 
be connected with the same external rite, if it was not 
founded in fact. Besides, the thing handed down, in 
26* 



306 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

this instance, is so simple in its nature, that there was 
no room for mistake. 

There is one fact, for the truth of which we de- 
pend entirely on tradition, so far as external testimony 
is concerned, and that is the truth which in this 
work we have been attempting to establish, that the 
books of the New Testament were written by the 
persons under whose names they have come down 
to us. This fact is incapable of being proved from 
the Scriptures, because we must first be assured that 
they contain the testimony of inspired men before we 
can prove anything by them. The point to be esta- 
blished here is, that the apostles wrote these books. 
If it were ever so often asserted in a book, that a 
certain person was its author, this would not be sat- 
isfactory evidence of its genuineness, because any 
impostor can write what falsehoods he pleases in a 
book, and may ascribe it to whom he will; as in 
fact many have written spurious works, and ascribed 
them to the apostles. We must, therefore, have the 
testimony of those who had the opportunity of judging 
of the fact, given either explicitly or implicitly. 

In most cases, where a book is published under the 
name of some certain author, in the country in which 
he lived and was known, a general silent acquies- 
cence in the fact, by the people of that age and 
country, with the consent of all that came after them, 
may be considered as satisfactory evidence of the 
genuineness of such book. But where much depends 
on the certainty of the fact in question, it is neces- 
sary to have positive testimony ; and in order that it 
be satisfactory, it should be universal, and uncontra- 
dicted. When, therefore, a certain volume is ex- 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 307 

pressly received as the work of certain individuals, 
by all who lived at or near the time when it was pub- 
lished, and all succeeding writings concur in ascribing 
it to the same persons, and not a solitary voice is 
raised in contradiction, the evidence of its genuine- 
ness seems to be as complete as the nature of the 
case admits. Just such is the evidence of the gen- 
uineness of the books of the New Testament ; or, 
at least, of most of them. It is, however, the evi- 
dence of tradition ; but of such a tradition as is abun- 
dantly sufficient to establish a fact of this sort. The 
thing attested is most simple in its nature, and not 
liable to be misunderstood. This necessity of tradi- 
tion to establish the authenticity of the books of the 
New Testament, has been made a great handle of 
by the Romanists, in the defence of their favourite 
doctrine. They pretend that the point which we 
have here conceded, is all that is necessary to estab- 
lish their whole system on the firmest foundation. 
They argue, that if we must receive the Scriptures 
themselves by tradition, much more other things. 
Indeed, they ascribe all the authority which the 
Scriptures possess to the testimony of the church, 
without which they assert that they would deserve 
no more credit than any other writings. But because 
a single fact, incapable of proof in any other way, 
must be received by tradition, it does not follow that 
numerous other matters which might easily have been 
recorded, must be learned in the same manner. Be- 
cause a document requires oral testimony to establish 
its authenticity, it is not therefore necessary to prove 
the truth of the matters contained in that record by 
the same means. 



308 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

The very purpose of written records is to prevent 
the necessity of trusting to the uncertainty of tradi- 
tion; and as to the allegation that the Scriptures 
owe their authority to the church, it amounts to no 
more than this, which we freely admit, that it is by 
the testimony of the early Fathers that we are as- 
sured that these writings are the productions of the 
apostles, and it is true that most of those witnesses 
who have given testimony were members of the 
Catholic church. But our confidence in their testi- 
mony on this point, is not because they were mem- 
bers of the church, but because they lived in times 
and circumstances favourable to an accurate know- 
ledge of the fact which they report. And according- 
ly we admit the testimony of those who were out of 
the church ; yea, of its bitterest enemies to the same 
fact, and on some accounts judge it to be the most un- 
exceptionable. Vfhile we weigh this evidence it would 
be absurd to make its validity depend on the witnesses 
being members of the church ; for that would be to 
determine that the church was divine and infallible, 
before we had ascertained that the Scriptures were 
the word of God. Surely, if on examination it had 
turned out that the Scriptures were not inspired, the 
authority of the Christian church would have been 
worth nothing, and therefore previously to the 
decision on this point we cannot defer anything to 
the authority of the church. The truth is, that the 
witnesses being of the church is, in this inquiry, 
merely an incidental circumstance. A sufficient num- 
ber of competent and credible witnesses, not of the 
church, would establish the fact just as well as those 
who have given testimony, and, as was before observed, 



OP UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 309 

sucli testimony on tlie score of freedom from all 
partiality has the advantage. 

The testimony of Jews and heathen has, on this 
account, been demanded by infidels, and has been 
sought for with avidity by the defenders of Christi- 
anity, and in the view of all considerate men is of 
great weight. But it is not just to ascribe the 
authority of these books to the church, because the 
greater number of the witnesses of their apostoli- 
cal origin were members of the church. The law 
enacted by the supreme legislature of the state does 
not owe its authority to the men who attest its genu- 
ineness. It is true, it would not be known certainly 
to be a law without the attestation, but it would be 
absurd to ascribe the authority of the law to the per- 
sons whose testimony proved that it was really a law 
of the state. The cases are exactly parallel. The 
Scriptures cannot owe their authority to the church, 
for without them the church can have no authority, 
and although she may, and does give ample testi- 
mony in favour of their divine origin, this confers no 
authority on them, it only proves to us that they have 
authority which is derived from the Spirit of God, by 
whom they were indited. It is truly wonderful how this 
plain case has been perplexed and darkened by the arti- 
fice and sophistry of the writers of the church of Rome. 

But if it be insisted, that if we admit tradition as 
sufficient evidence of a fact in one case, we ought to 
do so in every other where the tradition is as clear, 
we answer, that to this we have no objection, pro- 
vided this species of proof be as necessary and as 
clear in the one case as the other. Let any other 
fact be shown to be as fully attested as the genuine- 



310 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

ness of the books of the New Testament, and to 
need this kind of proof as much, and we will not 
hesitate to receive it as true, whatever may be the 
consequence. But the very fact which we have 
been considering, seems to raise a strong presump- 
tion against the necessity of depending on tradition 
for anything else. Why were these books written ? 
Was it not to convey to us, and to all future ages, 
the revelations of God to man ? Because it is neces- 
sary to authenticate by testimony this record, must 
we depend on the same testimony for information on 
the points of which the record treats ? Surely not. 
For the proof of these we have nothing to do but 
refer to the document itself; otherwise the posses- 
sion of written records would be useless. If, indeed, 
a doubt should arise about the meaning of something 
in the record, it would not be unreasonable to inquire 
how it had been understood and practised on by 
those who received it at first ; but if we should find 
a society acting in direct opposition to a written 
charter on which their existence depended, and pre- 
tending to prove that they were right by appealing 
from the written documents to vague traditions, all 
sensible men not interested would judge that the case 
was a very suspicious one. 

4. We are, moreover, ready to acknowledge that 
the gospel was at first, for several years, communi- 
cated orally by the apostles and their assistants. The 
churches when first planted had no written gospels ; 
they received the same truths now contained in the 
gospels and epistles, by the preaching of the apostles 
and others ; and, doubtless, were as well instructed as 
those churches which have had possession of the 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 311 

whole inspired volume. And what they had thus 
received without book they could communicate to 
others, and thus, if the gospels and epistles had never 
been written, the Christian religion might have been 
transmitted from generation to generation. Then it 
may be asked, why the writing of these books should 
hinder the transmission of many things, which might 
not be contained in them, to future generations ? for 
it cannot be doubted that many things were said and 
done by Christ which were not recorded in the gos- 
pels ; and there is reason to think that the apostles 
were much fuller in their sermons than in their 
writings; and that they established many rules for 
the good order and government of the church, of 
which we have in their epistles either no account 
or only brief hints ; which though they might be 
readily understood by those who had received their 
verbal instructions, are insufficient without tradition to 
teach us what rules and institutions were established 
in the churches by apostolical authority. Now, if 
these were transmitted by tradition to the next gene- 
ration, and by them to the following, and so on in 
an uninterrupted series until the present time, are we 
not as much bound to receive such traditions, and be 
governed by them as by the written word ? 

I have now presented the argument in favour of tra- 
ditions in the strongest light in which I am able to 
place it ; and it would be uncandid not to admit, that 
it wears at first sight a face of plausibility : and if 
the whole case as here stated, could be made out with 
satisfactory evidence, I think we should be constrained 
to receive, to some extent, this oral law of the Ro- 
jnish church. But before any man can reasonably 



312 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

be required to rest his faith on tradition, he has a 
right to be satisfied on several important points ; as, 
whether it was the purpose of God to permit any 
part of the revelation intended for the use of the 
church, in all future ages, to be handed down by 
tradition. For, as he directed everything in the law 
given at Mount Sinai, intended to regulate the faith 
and practice of the Israelites, to be committed to writ- 
ing by Moses, it is noways improbable that the same 
plan was pursued, in regard to the writings of the 
New Covenant ; especially, when it is considered how 
much superior written communications are to verbal, 
as it respects accuracy. When a channel for con- 
veying the truth had been provided, calculated to 
preserve all communications from corruption, and 
when it is acknowledged, that this was used for a 
part of the matter to be transmitted, how can it be 
accounted for, that another part should be committed 
to the uncertainty of oral tradition ? Why not com- 
mit the whole to writing ? 

But it is incumbent on the advocates of tradition 
to show, by undoubted proofs, that what they say has 
come down by tradition was really received from 
the mouth of Christ, or from the teaching of his apos- 
tles. As they wish to claim for this rule an autho- 
rity fully equal to that which is given to the Scrip- 
tures, they ought to be able to produce the very 
words in which these instructions were given. But 
this they do not pretend to do. It may be said, in- 
deed, that words and sentences, in their just order 
and connection, cannot be conveyed by tradition, and 
therefore this demand is unreasonable. I answer, that 
this allegation is most true, but instead of making in 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 313 

favour of traditions, it is a strong argument to prove, 
that nothing thus received can be of equal certainty 
and authority with the written word. When an arti- 
cle of faith is proposed, which is contained in the 
Scriptures, we can turn to the sacred text and read 
the words of Christ and his apostles, and may be as- 
sured that they express the truth contained in said 
article. But if an article of faith be asserted to have 
come down by tradition, we have no opportunity of 
knowing the words in which it was expressed : for, 
while it is pretended that the doctrine or instruction 
has reached us, the words have been lost ; for what 
advocate of tradition is able, in any single case, to 
furnish us with the words of any divine revelation, 
which is not contained in the sacred Scriptures ? 

But it is essential to the credit of traditions, that it 
be proved clearly, that those articles of religion, or 
institutions of worship, said to be received from this 
source, have indeed been handed down, without al- 
teration or corruption, from Christ and his apostles. 
It is not sufficient that they have been long received, 
and have now the sanction of the belief and practice 
of the whole Catholic church. It ought to be shown, 
that they have always, from the very days of the 
apostles, been received with universal consent. We 
know that the church has undergone many vicissi- 
tudes ; that she has sometimes been almost extirpated 
by the sword of persecution ; has been overrun with 
dangerous errors ; has been overwhelmed with the 
darkness of Gothic ignorance ; and we believe, has 
greatly apostatized from purity of doctrine and wor- 
ship ; and this accords with the prophecy of Paul, 
who clearly intimates that a time would come, 
27 



314 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

•wlien there should be a falling away. Now it may 
have happened, that during this long period of adver- 
sity, heresy, darkness, and corruption, many things 
may have crept in, and may have obtained an exten- 
sive and firm footing, which were totally unknown 
in the days of the apostles, or in the primitive church ; 
and that this has in fact occurred, we are not left to 
conjecture. It is a matter of historical record, which 
cannot be disputed, and which is not denied even by 
the Romanists themselves. Who that is not insane 
with prejudice, could persuade himself that all the 
opinions, rites and ceremonies, which now exist in the 
Romish church, were prevalent in the times of the 
apostles, and were received from them by tradition ? 

Besides, there is a multitude of other things re- 
ceived and held to be important by the church of 
Rome, of which there is no vestige in the Scrip- 
tures, and concerning which there is no early tradi- 
tion. Many rules and ceremonies which have been 
long in use, can be traced to their commencement 
at a period much later than that of the apostles. Now 
amidst such a mass of traditions, how can it be as- 
certained which have come down from Christ and his 
apostles ? Perhaps we shall be told, that the infalli- 
ble head of the church can determine with certainty 
what we ought to believe and practise ; but if there 
be on earth an infallible judge, we have no need of 
traditions. All that is necessary is, for this person 
to establish his claim to infallibility, and then all will 
be as much bound to receive his decisions, as if they 
were expressly written in the holy Scriptures. On 
this ground the controversy between the Romanists 
and Protestants first commenced. The defenders of 



OE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 315 

the old system appealed to the authority of the Pope, 
and the infallibility of the church, but as it was im- 
possible to sustain themselves by Scripture on these 
points, they found it very convenient to have recourse 
to the doctrine of unwritten traditions, which they 
pretended had been handed down from Christ and 
his apostles. Grant them this, and there is no doc- 
trine, however absurd, which may not be supported. 
Grant them this, and it will be in vain to appeal any 
more to the sacred Scriptures as a standard of truth ; 
for this traditionary law not only inculcates what is 
not found in the Scriptures, but teaches the only true 
interpretation of Scripture. Traditions may, there- 
fore, be considered as the bulwark of the Eomish 
church. Concede to them the ground which they 
assume, and the whole body of their ceremonial laws 
and unscriptural practices is safe. For as they 
can feign what traditions they please, having the 
keeping of them entirely in their own hands, they 
are prepared to defend every part of their system : 
but take this away from them, and their defence is 
gone. Bring them to the ground of clear scriptural 
testimony, and they are weak; for it is manifest 
that the Bible knows nothing of their monstrous ac- 
cumulation of superstitious rites. 

The council of Trent, therefore, early in their ses- 
sions, made a decree on this subject, in which, after 
recognizing the Scriptures, they add: "The Holy 
Synod receives and venerates traditions relating both 
to faith and manners, as proceeding from the mouth 
of Christ himself, or as dictated by the Holy Spirit, 
and preserved in * an uninterrupted succession in the 
Catholic church, with equal affection and reverence, 



316 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

as the written Scriptures!" This was the first decree 
of the fourth session of this famous Council. 

Before leaving this subject, it will be proper to 
consider some of the other arguments, which the Ro- 
manists bring forward in support of their beloved 
traditions. 

And the first is imposing, as it is derived from the 
express declarations of Scripture, in which we are 
exhorted to obey traditions. ''Now we command you, 
brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus, that ye with- 
draw yourselves from every brother that walketh dis- 
orderly, and not after the tradition which he received 
of us."* Here Paul makes express mention of tradi- 
tion. And in the preceding chapter, " Therefore 
brethren stand fast and hold the traditions which ye 
have been taught whether by word, or our epistle." 
Now all that is necessary to refute the argument de- 
rived from these and such like passages, where the 
word traditio7is is used, is to observe, that Paul em- 
ploys this word in a very extensive sense, to signify 
whatever doctrines or institutions he had delivered to 
the churches, whether by his preaching or writing. 
And in the verse first cited, he evidently refers to 
what he had said to them in his first epistle, for the 
words following are, " For ^''ourselves know how ye 
ought to follow us ; for we behaved not ourselves dis- 
orderly among you ; neither did we eat any man's 
bread for nought, &c." Now, this tradition which he 
commanded the Thessalonians to obey, was contained 
in the former epistle addressed to them, where it is 
said, " And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your 
own business, and to work with your own hands, as we 
* 2 Thess. lii. 6, 7, 11, 15. 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 317 

commanded you." 1 Thess. iv. 11. And in the quo- 
tation from the second chapter, it is clear, that by 
traditions, the apostle did not mean merely oral com- 
munications, for he explains himself, by saying, 
"whether by word or epistle." It is not denied, that 
Paul delivered many things orally to the churches, as 
has been already acknowledged. All the instructions 
given to the churches first planted, were oral, for as 
yet no gospels nor epistles were written ; but the true 
point in dispute is, whether any article of faith, or 
any important institution, thus originally communi- 
cated, was omitted, when the books of the New Tes- 
tament were written by divine inspiration. Whether, 
while a part of the revelation of God, for the use of 
his church, was committed to writing, another import- 
ant part was left to be handed down by tradition. 
That the word tradition, as used by Paul, makes no- 
thing in favour of the doctrine of the Romish church, 
is evident, because by this word he commonly means 
such things as were distinctly recorded in the Scrip- 
tures. Thus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he 
says, "For I delivered unto you first of all," where 
the word for transmitting by tradition, is used ; but 
what were those things which he had by tradition 
communicated to them ? He informs us in the next 
words, " How that Christ died for our sins according 
to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he 
rose again the third day, according to the Scrip- 
tures." 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4. 

It is manifest, therefore, that the argument derived 
from the exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but 
a shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of fair 
examination. 
27* 



318 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

2. Their next and principal argument is derived 
from the frequent declarations of the early Fathers 
in favour of tradition. Cyprian refers those who 
might be in doubt respecting any doctrine, to the holy 
tradition received from Christ and his apostles ; and 
Irenssus, as cited by Eusebius, says, "that those 
things which he heard Polycarp relate concerning 
Christ, his virtues and his doctrines, which he had 
learned from converse with the apostles, he had in- 
scribed on his heart, and not on paper." But after 
a few sentences he informs us "that all. which he 
had heard from them was in accordance with the 
Scriptures, (Ttai^ra ffu/i^cova r-at^ ypa^atj.") This Sentence 
of Irengeus is of great importance, for it teaches us 
how the Fathers understood this subject. They re- 
ceived such traditions as came down through pious 
men from the apostles, but they compared them with 
the Scriptures ; even then the Scriptures were the 
standard by which all traditions must be judged. 
Irenaeus insinuates, plainly enough, that if what he 
had heard from Polycarp, had not been in accordance 
with the Scriptures he would not have considered it 
as deserving attention. 

But the same Irenaeus and TertuUian have spoken 
in still stronger terms in favour of tradition in their 
controversies with heretics. The former, in the third 
chapter of the third book of his work on Heresies, 
says, "The tradition of the apostles is manifest in 
the whole world. In the church it is exposed to the 
view of all who are willing to know the truth." And 
in the fourth chapter, " It is not necessary to seek the 
truth from others which can easily be acquired from 
the church, since the blessed apostles have deposited 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 319 

in her, most fully, all those truths which are needful, 
so that every one who will may drink of the water 
of life. This is the true door of life, and all others 
are thieves and robbers ; them we should avoid ; but 
those things which appertain to the church we should 
delight in with great diligence, and should lay hold 
of the tradition of truth. For what if the apostles 
had left us no writings, ought we not to follow the 
order of traditions^ which they to whom the churches 
were committed have delivered to us ? To which in- 
stitution many barbarous nations have submitted, hav- 
neither letters nor ink, but having the tradition of the 
apostles inscribed on their hearts, which also they 
follow." 

Tertullian, in his work concerning " Prescriptions," 
says, "If Christ commissioned certain persons to 
preach his gospel, then certainly none should be re- 
ceived as preachers except those appointed to office 
by him. And as they preached what Christ re- 
vealed unto them, what they taught can only be 
known by applying to the churches which the apostles 
planted, by preaching to them, whether viva voce, or 
by their epistles. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees 
with that held by the apostolical churches is to be 
considered as true and held fast, because the churches 
received it from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, 
and Christ from God ; but all other doctrine which 
is repugnant to that received by the churches should 
be rejected as false, as being repugnant to that truth 
taught by the apostles, by Christ, and by God." 

These declarations from such men in favour of tra- 
dition seem, at first view, to be altogether favourable 
to the doctrine of the church of Home ; but we de- 



320 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

spair not of being able to convince tbe candid reader, 
that when the occasion on which these things were 
said, and the character and opinions of the persons 
against whom these Fathers wrote are considered, 
their testimony instead of making against the suffi- 
ciency of the Scriptures will be found corroborative 
of the opinions which we maintain. They do not 
appeal to tradition, let it be observed, for confirma- 
tion of articles of faith not contained in the Scrip- 
tures ; but the doctrines which they are defending 
are among the most fundamental contained in the 
New Testament. They are precisely the doctrines 
which are comprehended in the Apostles' Creed. 
Now, to appeal to tradition for the confirmation of 
such doctrines as these, never can be of any force to 
prove that other doctrines not contained in the Scrip- 
tures may be established by tradition. But it may be 
asked, if those doctrines concerning which they dis- 
puted are plainly inculcated in the New Testament, 
why have recourse to tradition ? Why not appeal at 
once to the Scriptures ? To which I would answer, 
that Irenaeus does little else in the third, fourth, and 
fifth books of his work than confirm the truth by a 
copious citation of Scripture. 

Nothing can be more manifest, therefore, than that 
the matters in dispute were not such as could only 
be proved by tradition, but they were such truths as 
lie at the very foundation of the Christian religion, 
and to record which, the gospels and epistles were 
written. But still the question returns, why did these 
Fathers appeal for proof to tradition, when they had 
testimony so full and decisive from the Scriptures ? 
The answer to this (question will show us, in the 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 321 

clearest manner, that the views of Irenaeus and Ter- 
tullian, relative to the Scriptures and to traditions, 
were such as are now held by Protestants, and that 
the heretics whom they opposed, occupied nearly the 
same ground as the Romanists now do, in this con- 
troversy. These heretics either rejected the Scrip- 
tures as being an insufficient rule, and asserted that 
they were not competent for the decision of such 
matters ; or they so corrupted them, that it was use- 
less to appeal to them for proof; for testimonies de- 
rived from the genuine Scriptures they would not 
admit. This is not conjecture ; for Irenaeus has ex- 
plicitly stated the case. "When," says he, "they 
are confuted from the Scriptures themselves, they al- 
lege that they are not correct, or not of authority, 
and assert that they speak so variously, that the truth 
cannot be established by them without tradition ; 
for, say they, it was handed down, not by letters, but 
viva voce.'' And Tertullian says, " This heresy does 
not receive some parts of the Scriptures; and what 
they do receive is so corrupted by additions, or de- 
tractions, to suit their own doctrine, that they cannot 
be said to receive the Scriptures entire, &c." Again: 
" They pretend that the apostles did not wish to re- 
veal all things plainly, for while they made known cer- 
tain truths to all, there were others which they com- 
municated secretly, and to a few persons, which they 
say the apostle Paul meant by the depositum.'' 

From these quotations, the reason why these Fa- 
thers had recourse to traditions is most manifest. It 
was the only ground on which these heretics could 
be met ; for they denied, (as the Romanists now do,) 
that the Scriptures were a certain and sufficient 



322 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

standard of truth. They said that their meaning 
could not be ascertained without tradition ; that they 
were defective ; and also, that there were some parts 
which they did not acknowledge ; and they held, 
moreover, that some things were never committed to 
writing, but designedly handed down by tradition. 
We did not, indeed, expect to find the exact doctrine 
of the Romanists respecting the Scriptures and tra- 
dition, at so early a period of the church : but unfor- 
tunately for their cause, the persons who are found 
agreeing with them are gross heretics. 

It is now easy to see why the appeal was made 
by the Fathers to universal tradition ; and they show, 
that in their day tradition and Scripture were har- 
monious ; and that if the apostles had written no- 
thing, the consent of all the churches would be suffi- 
cient to prove, that the doctrines which they defended 
were received from the apostles. Instead, therefore, 
of using tradition, as the Romanists do, to prove some 
doctrine not contained in the Scripture,' they used it 
merely to confirm the truths which are manifestly 
contained in the Nevf Testament. They were at no 
loss for Scripture testimonies to establish these truths, 
but they were disputing with men who did not admit 
the authority of the Scriptures to be decisive, and 
therefore they appeal to universal tradition in support 
of them. It is said, indeed, by Irenaeus, that many 
barbarous nations had received the faith, among 
whom letters and writing were unknown. They must, 
therefore, it is concluded, have received it from tradi- 
tion. Very good. Just as heathen tribes now re- 
ceive, from those missionaries who preach the gospel 
to them, a short summary of the most important doc- 



OP UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 323 

trlnes of the New Testament. The truths which these 
barbarous nations received, were not different from 
those contained in the sacred Scriptures, but the very 
same, taught in a short comprehensive creed. In 
fact, we have here the true origin of that symbol of 
doctrine, commonly called the Apostles' Creed, which 
was a summary of Christianity, used in very early 
times, in the instruction of those who were not able to 
read the New Testament, or who had, as yet, no ac- 
cess to it. There are extant a number of these creeds, 
which at first were very short ; but were afterwards 
increased, as new heresies arose. Bishop Usher found 
several of these in very ancient manuscripts, all of 
which are substantially the same as the creed called 
Hhe Apostles' Creed.' That Irenseus actually re- 
ferred, in the passage alluded to, to these elementary 
doctrines, he explicitly informs us ; for, immediately 
after mentioning these barbarous nations, who were 
destitute of "letters and ink," he adds, "Believing in 
one Grod, the maker of heaven and earth, and all 
things which are therein ; and in Jesus Christ the Son 
of God, who for his exceeding great love to his crea- 
tures, submitted to be born of a virgin, by himself 
uniting man to God ; and having suffered under Pon- 
tius Pilate, and having risen again, was received into 
heaven ; about to come again in glory ; the Saviour 
of those who are saved, and the judge of those who 
are judged ; and will send into eternal fire, the per- 
verters of the truth, and the despisers of his Father, 
and of his coming ; which barbarians, if any one 
should announce to them the doctrines invented by 
heretics, stopping their ears, they would fly far away 
from them. Thus, the ancient apostolical tradition 



324 THE EOMISH DOCTRINE 

does not sanction those monstrous opinions inculcated 
by heretics." 

In the second chapter of the first book of the same 
work, Irenseus describes the apostolical doctrine, 
thus : " The church, planted by the apostles and their 
disciples throughout the whole world, even to the ends 
of the earth, receives the same faith ; which is, in one 
God Almighty, the Father, who made heaven and 
earth, the sea, and all things which are therein ; in 
one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate for our 
salvation ; and in the Holy Spirit, who by the pro- 
phets, predicted the good will of God ; his advent ; 
his generation of a virgin ; his passion, and resurrec- 
tion from the dead ; and the ascension in the flesh of 
our beloved Lord Christ Jesus ; and his coming again 
from heaven, in the glory of his Father, as our Lord 
Jesus Christ ; our God, Saviour, and King ; before 
whom, according to the good pleasure of the Father 
invisible, every knee shall bow, of things in heaven 
and things in earth, and things under the earth, and 
every tongue shall confess the justice of his judgments 
towards all, when he will send wicked spirits, fallen 
and apostate angels, and blaspheming men, into eter- 
nal fire ; but the just and upright who have kept his 
precepts, and persevered in his love, some indeed from 
the beginning, and others as having received the gift 
of repentance, he will surround with eternal glory. 
This faith, the church spread over the whole world, 
diligently keeps, as if she inhabited one house, and be- 
lieves in it, as if possessing but one soul and one heart ; 
and in accordance with the same, she teaches and 
preaches, as with one mouth. Although the lan- 
guages which are in the world are diiferent, yet there 



OP UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 325 

is one and the same tradition. Neither do the 
churches which are founded in Germany believe dif- 
ferently from those in Italy, nor from those which 
are in Egypt, or in Libya, or in the middle of the 
world. But as the sun is one and the same through 
the whole world, so the light and preaching of the 
truth, everywhere shines, and illuminates all men, 
who are willing to come to the knowledge of the 
truth," &c. 

This then is the apostolical tradition, of which these 
Fathers speak in such high terms : not any secret doc- 
trine, never committed to writing ; not any articles of 
faith, or rites of worship, of which no vestige can be 
found in the Bible ; but the plain, prominent, funda- 
mental doctrines of the Christian religion : the very 
doctrines contained in the Apostles' Creed. That the 
preaching of the gospel preceded the circulation of the 
Scriptures we admit, but this preaching we insist and 
have proved, contained nothing different from that 
which is written in the gospels and epistles. 

Tertullian speaks to the same purpose, and fur- 
nishes us with another summary of the common faith 
of primitive Christians ; " The rule of faith," says he, 
'' is that by which it is believed, that there is no more 
than one God, and no other beside the Creator of the 
world, who produced all things out of nothing, by his 
Word, first of all sent forth, which Word is called his 
Son ; was seen under different forms by the patriarchs ; 
was always heard by the prophets ; and finally, by 
the Spirit and power of God, being conceived by the 
Virgin Mary, became flesh in her womb. Jesus 
Christ having thus become man, published a new law, 
and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven ; was 
28 



326 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

crucified ; rose again the third day ; was caught up 
into heaven ; sat down on the right hand of God the 
Father ; sent, as his substitute, the power of the Holy 
Spirit, to influence those who believe ; will come again 
in glory to take his saints to the fruition of eternal 
life and of the celestial promises, and to adjudge the 
profane to eternal fire ; at which time, there will be a 
resuscitation of both parts, and the flesh will be re- 
stored. This rule of faith was instituted by Christ, 
and is questioned by none but heretics, and such as 
teach those things which make heretics."* 

These are the apostolical traditions which were 
universally received ; the very plainest and most 
fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, 
which are written amply in every gospel, and recog- 
nized fully in every epistle. Thus far then, it does 
not appear that anything was left to unwritten tra- 
dition, to be communicated to future ages ; for those 
very truths which were at first delivered orally by the 
apostles, were afterwards recorded by inspiration ; 
and when the preachers of the gospel instructed the 
ignorant, who were unacquainted with letters, they 
taught them, precisely, but in a summary way, what 
is written in the New Testament. 

3. Another argument, depended on by the advo- 
cates of tradition, is derived from the fact, that there 
are some doctrines, not expressly mentioned in Scrip- 
ture, which are universally inculcated by the Fathers, 
which all true Christians have received as articles of 
faith, in all succeeding ages, and which are not denied 
even by Protestants themselves. To this class belong 
the doctrine of the Trinity ; the doctrine of the Son 
* Tertull. De Praescriptionibus. 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 327 

being of the same substance as the Father ; the deity 
of the Holy S23irit ; his proceeding from the Father 
and the Son : the two natures in Christ constituting 
one person ; the baptism of infants ; the religious ob- 
servance of the Lord's da}^, &c. Now, in regard to 
these articles of religion, we observe, that although 
they are not contained in Scripture, in so many words, 
they may be derived from Scripture by legitimate in- 
ference ; and conclusions fairly deduced from the 
declarations of the word of God, are as truly parts of 
divine revelation, as if they were expressly taught in 
the sacred volume. All the articles mentioned above, 
are capable of satisfactory proof- from Scripture ; and 
if we did not find them taught there, we should feel 
under no obligation to receive them. We do not deny, 
however, that the universal consent, and uniform 
practice of the primitive church, ought to have great 
weight in confirming our faith in important doctrines, 
and in satisfying us that certain things not explicitly 
mentioned in Scripture were practised by the apostles. 
Although the doctrine of the Trinity, and the essen- 
tial deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, are doctrines 
very plainly taught in the New Testament, yet in a 
matter of such vast importance, it cannot but afi"ord 
satisfaction to every sincere inquirer, to find that these 
doctrines were universally believed by the Fathers, to 
be taught in the writings of the apostles. 

And although there are principles and facts re- 
corded in the New Testament, from which it can be 
fairly concluded, that the first day of the week was 
set apart for public worship, and that the infants of 
believers were, from the beginning, baptized, and thus 
connected with the visible church ; yet, as these insti- 



328 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

tutions are not so expressly included in Scripture, as 
to remove all uncertainty, the fact of their universal 
observance, in the primitive church, has, deservedly, 
great influence in convincing us, that our reasonings 
and inferences from Scriptural principles are correct. 
But why should we be required to receive these things 
merely on the authority of tradition, when the Fathers 
themselves appealed for their truth to the infallible 
rule contained in the New Testament ? Thus, on the 
subject of infant baptism, which the Romanists pretend 
is derived solely from tradition, we find the Fathers 
appealing not only to universal practice and apostoli- 
cal tradition, but frequently to the words of Scripture, 
in which they believed that the practice was implicitly 
authorized. Irenseus, Origen, Augustine, Cyprian, 
Ambrose, and Chrysostom, do all appeal to Scripture, 
when treating this subject, although they do, indeed, 
lay great stress on the derivation of this practice from 
the apostles by undoubted tradition. It is not de- 
nied, however, that after some time an undue defer- 
ence was paid to traditions. It will be shown here- 
after, that many were misled from the simplicity of 
the gospel by this very means. By yielding too 
ready an assent to traditions, they were led to adopt 
false opinions, some of which were directly repugnant 
to the written word. It can have no weight with us, 
therefore, to adduce such a writer as Epiphanius 
extolling tradition ; for it can be proved, that from 
this source he imbibed many foolish notions, and 
fabulous stories, which the more impartial among the 
Bomanists are as far from receiving as we are. Nor 
do we feel bound, on this subject, to adopt all the 
opinions anywhere found in the writings of Origen, 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 329 

Basil, Augustine, &c. ; for we are persuaded, that 
this was one of the errors of antiquity, and that it 
was prolific of numerous evils, by which the church 
of God became greatly corrupted in after times. 
But it answers no purpose to the Romish church to 
plead these authorities ; for they themselves do not 
receive as articles of faith or parts of divine worship, 
all that these Fathers derived from tradition. The 
principle of Protestants ever has been, that the Scrip- 
tures contain all things necessary to guide the faith 
and practice of believers ; and they feel under no 
obligations to receive any article of religion, which 
cannot be proved to be contained in the sacred 
volume. If, in the explanation of Scripture, light 
can be derived from tradition, or the universal opi- 
nion or practice of the primitive church, they are 
very willing to avail themselves of it, as they are to 
derive aid from any other quarter : but since they are 
convinced that the Fathers were fallible men, and 
actually fell into many mistakes, it would be folly to 
build their faith on their opinions, much more to 
adopt their errors, knowing them to be such. "■ The 
Bible is the Religion of Protestants." 

The fact is, that the Fathers generally depended 
on Scripture for the proof of their doctrines ; and 
called in the aid of tradition, only to confirm the doc- 
trines which they derived from the written word. 
And here it is important to remark, that tradition, in 
the earlier and purer times of the church, was a very 
different thing from what it is now. Men who lived 
within one or two hundred years of the apostles, had 
an opportunity of ascertaining their opinions and 
practices from tradition, with a degree of certainty 
28* 



330 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

which is utterly unattainable after the lapse of ages 
of error and darkness. If it should be agreed, to re- 
ceive as apostolical everything which the early Fa- 
thers professed to have received by tradition from 
the apostles, yet it would be most unreasonable to be 
required to admit as divine, the monstrous mass of 
traditions held by the Romish church, which has been 
accumulating for ages. 

But it is capable of the clearest proof, that great 
uncertainty attended all matters received by tradition, 
which were not contained in Scripture, even in those 
times that were nearest to the days of the apostles. 
This fact is manifest, in the case of Papias, who was 
contemporary with the last of the apostles ; and of 
Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the second cen- 
tury. If then tradition was so uncertain, at its very 
source, who can place any confidence in this channel 
of communication, after it has been increasing in im- 
purity for seventeen hundred years ? If the stream 
had even been pure in its commencement, it would, 
by this time, have become so turbid, and so poisoned, 
that no dependence could be placed in the information 
conveyed by it. But where certain things are said 
to have been received by tradition from the apostle 
John, at second hand, it was deemed important to 
verify them, by a comparison with the Scriptures, as 
we have already seen. How unreasonable then is the 
demand, that we should now receive all traditions, 
which have come down to us, without any test of their 
genuineness, or any comparison of them with the 
oracles of God ! 

Here also it is necessary to observe that there is 
a wide distinction to be made between articles of faith 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 331 

and institutions of worship which are obligatory on 
all, and such modes of worship as were adopted under 
the general rule of " doing all things decently and in 
order," or from notions of expediency, with a view of 
conciliating those that were without. It may be 
proved, indeed, from the writings of the Fathers that 
many things of this kind existed, which they never 
thought of placing on a level with the faith received 
from the apostles. And it may be here remarked, 
that it was one of the first and greatest mistakes into 
which the church fell, after inspiration ceased, to make 
too free a use of this doctrine of expediency. The 
abuses which have crept in under this specious dis- 
guise were not foreseen. The Fathers saw no harm 
in an indifi'erent ceremony to which, perhaps, their 
new converts were attached from long custom. By 
adopting things of this kind, the church which was at 
first simple and unincumbered with rites, became 
strangely metamorphosed ; and in place of her simple 
robe of white, assumed a gorgeous dress tricked off 
with gaudy ornaments and various colours. This 
practice of inventing new ceremonies went on increas- 
ing until, in process of time, the burdensome ritual of 
the Levitical law was not comparable to the liturgy of 
the Christian church. Who that now attends a 
Romish chapel on some high day, would suppose that 
the service performed was connected with the religion 
of the New Testament ? 

It is of no consequence, therefore, to adduce testi- 
monies of the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth 
ages of the Christian church, to show that such cere- 
monies were then in use in some particular part of the 
church J or even in the church universal. All know 



332 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

by what means these things were received and obtained 
prevalence. But let it be kept in memory that the 
Fathers do not assert that these usages were derived 
from the apostles ; nor do they pretend that they were 
necessary ; and accordingly we find that in different 
countries they were not the same. 

4. I come now to consider the last argument for 
unwritten traditions which I have been able to dis- 
cover. It is this, that without the aid of tradition 
the Scriptures will be of no real benefit to us, because 
it is only by this means that we can arrive at their 
true meaning. And it is alleged that the Fathers 
in all disputes with heretics, when they referred to 
Scripture, still appealed to universal tradition for 
a true exposition of the meaning of the passages 
adduced. 

In returning an answer to this argument I would 
observe, that should we even grant all that is con- 
tended for, it would not be a concession of the main 
point in controversy. The claim of the Romanists, 
so unblushingly advanced in the decree of Trent 
already cited is, " That traditions relating both to 
faith and manners, are to be received with equal affec- 
tion and reverence as the canonical Scriptures." 
And lest we should be at any loss to know what arti- 
cles of faith are pretended to be received by tradition 
alone, Peter a Soto, one of the great defenders of 
the decrees of the Council of Trent, and a member 
of that Council, explicitly declares, " That the rule 
is infallible and universal ; that whatever things the 
Romish church believes and holds, which are not 
contained in the Scriptures, are to be considered as 
derived from the apostles ; provided the observances 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 333 

cannot be traced to any certain origin or author." 
Everything in use in this church, of the commence- 
ment of which we are ignorant, must be ascribed to 
the apostles without doubt, and without further proof! 
And then he descends to particular doctrines and 
rites which, according to this sweeping rule, we 
must receive as handed down by tradition from the 
apostles. Among these are " the oblation of the 
sacrifice of the altar, unction with chrism or the 
holy oil, invocation of saints, the merit of good 
works, the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the con- 
secration of the water in baptism, the sacrament of 
confirmation, of orders, of matrimony, prayers for 
the dead, extreme unction, auricular confession, and 
satisfaction," &c. But beside these there are innu- 
merable other things which are held sacred by the 
Romish church which cannot be proved from Scrip- 
ture, such as the mutilation of the Lord's Supper, the 
celibacy of the clergy, the distinction of meats, pur- 
gatory, pilgrimages, indulgences, the worship of im- 
ages and relics, the canonization of saints, &c. Now, 
she cannot pretend that all these were received from 
the apostles, for some of them are in direct repug- 
nance to the plain declarations of Scripture ; and the 
occasion of the introduction of some of them is matter 
of history, as is acknowledged by the Romanists them- 
selves. And surely it is not a very convincing argu- 
ment of the apostolical origin of doctrines or cere- 
monies, that w^e do not know when they took their 
rise. 

But the argument now under consideration relin- 
quishes this ground, and goes back to the Scriptures as 
the foundation of faith, but insists that the true inter- 



334 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

pretation of Scripture can only be known by tradition. 
On which we remark : 

That many things in Scripture are so clear that 
they stand in need of no interpretation. They are 
already as plain as any exposition can make them. 
Who wants tradition to teach him that Christ is the 
Son of God; was born of the virgin Mary; was 
crucified under Pontius Pilate, rose again the third 
day, and ascended to heaven, whence he will come 
again to judge the world ? If we cannot understand 
the plain declarations of Scripture, neither could w^e 
understand an exposition. If we cannot know what 
the apostles and evangelists mean in their plainest 
declarations when we have their very words before 
us, how shall we know what is the meaning of the 
vague language of tradition ? 

There are many parts of the New Testament of 
which tradition has handed down no interpretation. 
If we wish to know their meaning, it is in vain that 
we apply to the Fathers for instruction. They are 
silent. They have not commented on these books 
and passages. To which of the Fathers shall I go 
for an exposition of the book of Revelation ? Or will 
the Pope himself, aided by all his cardinals, or by 
an oecumenical council, undertake to give us the true 
interpretation of this prophecy ? It cannot be true 
that Scripture can be interpreted only by tradition ; 
unless we agree to give up a large part of the New 
Testament as wholly incapable of being understood. 

We cannot build our faith on the interpretation of 
the Fathers, in all cases, because they often fall into 
palpable mistakes, which is not denied by the Roman- 
ists themselves ; and again, they differ among them- 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 335 

selves. How then can it be known Avhat that in- 
terpretation is, which was received from the apos- 
tles ? Must I follow Justin, or Iren^us, or Cle- 
ment of Alexandria ? or must I believe in all the 
allegorical interpretations contained in the Homilies 
of Origen, according to which, the plainest passages 
are made to mean something perfectly foreign from 
the literal sense ? If the tradition which brings down 
this interpretation, is not found in the writings of the 
Fathers, where is it ? And how has it come down ? 
Surely that which was never mentioned nor recorded 
by the ancient church, ought not to be received as an 
apostolical tradition ; for, as the great Chillingworth 
Bays, " A silent tradition is like a silent thunder," a 
thing inconceivable. But we shall be told, that the 
church has preserved this deposit, and can testify that 
it was derived from the apostles. What church ? 
And where is her testimony ? And how do we know 
that among such a mass of traditions, some have not 
crept in, which originated in other sources than the 
teaching of Christ and his apostles ? Who kept these 
traditions securely when the church was overrun with 
Gothic ignorance and barbarism ? Who kept this 
treasure unadulterated, when Arianism was predomi- 
nant ? If there be such an oral law, containing an 
exposition of Scripture, how has it happened that there 
have existed such dissensions about doctrine in the 
Romish church itself? And, as it is acknowledged, 
that many usages of the church have had their origin, 
long since the apostles' days, what authority is there 
for these innovations ? If the authority of the church 
was sufficient to establish these, it could as easily es- 
tablish all the rest, and there is no need of apostolical 



836 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE 

tradition : but if there is a distinction to be made be- 
tween observances derived from the apostles, and such 
as have been invented by men, how can we draw the 
line between them ? 

An implicit believer in the infallibility of the Pope, 
would deem it sufficient to answer, that his holiness 
at Rome knows certainly what is apostolical, and 
what not ; what is obligatory and what not. All 
we have to do, is to believe what he believes, or what 
he tells us to believe. Now, without disputing the 
pretensions of the bishop of Rome to such extraordi- 
nary knowledge, at present, I would ask, if we must 
go to an infallible judge to learn what are apostolical 
traditions, what use is there in traditions ? Why does 
not this infallible teacher declare at once what is 
truth in all cases, without the trouble of searching 
into antiquity after traditions, which never can be 
found ? 

But if it be alleged that the traditions which ought 
to be received as the rule of our faith, are such 
as were universal, and concerning which there can- 
not be any doubt, I answer, that many such tradi- 
tions may indeed be found, but what do they respect ? 
Those very doctrines which are most plainly and 
frequently inculcated in Scripture, and of which we 
need no exposition ; for, as was said before, they are 
expressed as perspicuously as any exposition can be. 
But it affords us satisfaction to find the church openly 
professing, from the beginning, those truths which 
we find recorded in Scripture. If it does not add 
confirmation to our faith in these points, it gives us 
pleasure to find such a harmony in the belief of true 
Christians. 



OP UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 337 

Finally, it is dangerous to rely upon traditions. 
Heretics in all ages sheltered themselves under this 
doctrine. Those with whom Tertullian contended, 
alleged that the apostles did not know everything 
necessary, as Christ declared he had many things to 
say, which they could not bear yet ; or there were 
some things which they did not teach publicly, nor 
commit to writing, but communicated privately to a 
few chosen persons, and therefore they declined the 
authority of Scripture. The same is true of those 
against whom Irengeus wrote. They appealed from 
Scripture to tradition, and he answers them by show- 
ing that universal tradition was conformable to Scrip- 
ture. 

Eusebius informs us that Artemon, who asserted 
that Christ was a mere man, pretended that he had 
learnt, from tradition^ that all the apostles were of his 
opinion.* Thus also Clement of Alexandria says, 
*' that Basilides gloried in having received his doc- 
trine through a few hands from Peter ; and Valenti- 
nus boasted of having been instructed by one who had 
been a disciple of Paul."t The Marcionites professed 
to have received their doctrines from Matthew. The 
Arians, as appears by an oration against them by 
Athanasius, appealed to tradition for the confirmation 
of their tenets. In fact, this doctrine of unwritten 
traditions has been justly compared to Pandora's box, 
which is calculated to fill the world with evils and he- 
resies. But not only have heretics availed themselves 
of this corrupt fountain, but good men have been de- 
ceived by lending too credulous an ear to traditions. 

Papias one of the hearers of John the apostle, was 

* Liber v. c. 28. f Strom, xiii. 

29 



338 THE KOMISH DOCTRINE 

a great collector of traditions. He was inquisitive to 
know what each of the apostles had at any time 
said ; and there was some chance at coming at the 
truth from oral tradition, by one who was a hearer 
of one of the apostles. But what valuable informa- 
tion did this good man obtain by all his inquiries, 
which is not in Scripture ? Let Eusebius answer, 
^'Papias adopted many paradoxical opinions, by 
giving heed to unwritten traditions,(?tapa6ocf£wjaypa(pov) 
and received certain strange parables of our Saviour, 
mixed with fabulous things, among which was the 
error of the Chiliasts ; by which many other excel- 
lent men were deceived, paying too much deference 
to antiquity and unwritten traditions. Even such 
men as Irenaeus, ApoUinarius, TertuUian, Yictorinus, 
and Lactantius, were misled by these ancient tradi- 
tions, so that they adopted an opinion for which there 
is no foundation in sacred Scripture, and not only 
so, but which is repugnant to the doctrine of Christ 
and his apostles."* 

Clement of Alexandria, too, than whom no man of 
the ancient church was more celebrated, speaks of 
certain persons who had taken much pains to pre- 
serve the sayings of the apostles handed down by 
tradition, among whom he mentions a Hebrew who is 
supposed to be Papias ; but when he comes to tell 
us what he had learned from these unwritten tradi- 
tions which is not contained in Scripture, it amounts 
to this, '' That there was a public doctrine and a 
secret doctrine ; the one exoteric, and the other es- 
oteric ; that the former was committed to writing, and 
was in the hands of all ; but the latter was communi- 
* The reference is to the Millennarian doctrine. 



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 339 

cated secretly to chosen disciples. And if we may 
judge of the secret doctrine handed down by tra- 
dition from some specimens of it which he had learned, 
we will not appreciate unwritten traditions very highly 
in comparison with the written word. Among these 
is the opinion that the Greek philosophy answered 
the same purpose as the law of Moses, and was a 
schoolmaster to bring those that professed it to 
Christ ; that this philosophy as well as the law of 
Moses was able to justify men, and that there were 
many ways of obtaining life. From the same tra- 
dition he teaches that Christ's ministry was finished 
in one year, which opinion Irenaeus ascribes to heretics, 
and declares it as a tradition from John that Christ, 
when he was crucified, was nearly fifty years of age. 
Clement relates it as a tradition, " That the apostles 
after their death, went and preached to the dead, who 
descended with the apostles into a place of water, and 
then came up alive," and many other like things.* 

There is much reason to believe that the corruption 
of the church, which commenced about this time, was 
owing to a disposition which began to be indulged 
of lending too credulous an ear to traditions, and to 
apocryphal writings. 

But among the Fathers no one gave himself up 
so entirely to unwritten traditions and apocryphal 
fables as Epiphanius. His writings abound with 
things of this kind ; but who would assert that we 
are bound to receive these stories as articles of faith ? 
Even the Romish church with all her store of legends, 
will not receive as true and necessary all that is 

* Strom, lib. II. 



340 THE BIBLE A COMPLETE RULE 

handed down by tradition from one and another of the 
Fathers. 

From what has been said, therefore, the conclu- 
sion is clear that the Scriptures are complete with- 
out unwritten traditions ; that no articles of faith, nor 
institutions of worship, concerning which the Scrip- 
tures are silent, have come down to us by tradition ; 
that we have uniform, universal tradition on those 
points which are plainly taught in Scripture; that 
many things pretended to have been received from 
the apostles by tradition cannot be traced to them, 
and that many other things made equally necessary 
by the Romish church, can be proved to have origi- 
nated many hundred of years since the death of the 
apostles. It has been also shown that there is no 
certain method of distinguishing between what is 
apostolical, and what has been derived from other 
sources, unless we make the Scriptures our standard ; 
that tradition cannot be our guide even in interpret- 
ing Scriptures ; and finally, that tradition has been 
the common refuge of heretics, and has greatly mis- 
led good and orthodox men, by inducing them to 
adopt wild theories, fabulous stories, and paradoxical 
opinions, some of which are directly repugnant to 
Scripture. 

The traditions of the Romish church stand on no 
higher ground than the traditions of the Scribes and 
Pharisees in the time of our Saviour ; but he rejected 
these traditions as having no authority, and as making 
void the law of God. " Why do ye," says Christ, 
" also transgress the commandment of God by your 
tradition ? Thus have ye made the commandment of 
God of none effect by your tradition." Matt. xv. 3 — 6. 



OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 341 

" Howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for 
doctrines the commandments of men." Mark vii. 7. 
The same questions and reproofs may with equal pro- 
priety be addressed to the Pope, and the doctors 
of the Romish church. But, say we, " To the law 
and to the testimony ; if they speak not according to 
these, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 
viii. 20. 

Thus have we brought this work to a close, and it 
affords us pleasure to believe that most who read these 
pages will be convinced that the Bible is a complete 
rule, both of faith and practice. " The law of the Lord 
is perfect." Psa. xix. What a treasure have we in the 
Old and New Testament ! Here God speaks to us by his 
"lively oracles." The way of life is delineated so dis- 
tinctly, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not 
err therein. We have, indeed, " a sure word of prophecy 
to which ye do well that ye take heed as to a light shin- 
ing in a dark place until the day dawn, and the day 
star arise in your hearts." 2 Pet. 7 — 19. There is 
nothing lacking to him that is in possession of the 
Scriptures ; for " all Scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for 
correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the 
man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto 
all good works." 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. 

Let us then be grateful to God, and give him un- 
ceasing thanks for this precious deposit which he has 
committed to his church, and which, by his Provi- 
dence, he has preserved uninjured through all the 
vicissitudes through which she has passed. Let us 
praise God that in regard to us, that night of dark- 
ness is past in which there was a famine, not of bread, 
29* 



842 THE BIBLE A COMPLETE RULE, &C. 

nor of water, but of tlie word of the Lord ; when the 
light of this brilliant lamp was put out, or rather " put 
under a bushel," and the feeble erring light of tradi- 
tion was substituted in its place. Let us be glad and 
rejoice that we have lived to see the day when copies 
of the Bible are multiplied, and when many run to 
and fro to circulate them ; and let us wait in assured 
hope for the day when " the knowledge of the Lord 
shall cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. 
Even soj come Lord Jesus. Amen." 



APPENDIX. 



NOTE A. (Page 39.) 



FIRST DECREE OF THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE COUNCIL 
OF TRENT, A. D. 1546. 

" The holy oecumenical and general Council of Trent, legiti- 
mately convened in the Holy Spirit, under the presidency of 
three legates of the Apostolic see, constantly proposing this 
before all things, that all errors being taken away, the gospel in 
its purity may be preserved in the Church, which was promised 
before by the prophets in the holy Scriptures, but which was pro- 
mulgated by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with his 
own mouth ; moreover, he commanded it to be preached to every 
creature by his apostles, as the fountain of all saving truth and 
moral discipline : which truth and discipline he provided should 
be contained in the books of Scripture, and in unwritten tradi- 
tions, received from the mouth of Christ by the apostles, or from 
the apostles speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and 
handed down to us ; therefore this Synod, following the example 
of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with equal pious 
affection and reverence, all the books both of the Old and New 
Testament (for one God is the author of both:) likewise those 
traditions relating to faith and manners, which were received 
from the mouth of Christ himself, or from his inspired apostles, 
and which have been preserved in an uninterrupted succession in 
the Catholic Church. Moreover, this Synod judges it proper to 
give a catalogue of the sacred books, lest any doubt should arise 
in the minds of any respecting the books received by them, the 
names of which are here inserted in this decree: viz. the five 
books of Moses — Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter- 
onomy. Next, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two 
of Chronicles, two of Ezra, viz. the first and the second, which is 
called Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, CL Psalms of 
David, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wis- 
dom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, 
Twelve Minor Prophets, viz. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, 
Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, 
Malachi, two of Maccabees, first and second. Of the New Tes- 
tament, the four gospels, viz. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the 

(343) 



344 APPENDIX. 

Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke the Evangelist ; fourteen 
epistles of the blessed apostle Paul, viz. to the Komans ; to the 
Corinthians, two; to the Galatians ; to the Ephesians ; to the 
Philippians ; to the Colossians ; to the Thessalonians, two ; to 
Timothy, two; to Titus; to Philemon; to the Hebrews. Of the 
apostle Peter, two; of the apostle John, three; of James, one; 
of the apostle Jude, one ; the Apocalypse of John the apostle. 

" But if any one shall not receive as canonical and sacred all 
these books, with all their parts, as they are used to be read in 
the Catholic Cliurch, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin 
edition ; or shall knowingly and intentionally contemn any of the 
aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema. 

" Hence all may understand in what order and way the Synod, 
after laying the foundation of the Confession of their Faith, will 
proceed ; and what testimonies and proofs they will especially use 
in confirming doctrines, and in the reformation of manners in the 
church." 



NOTE B. (Page 53.) 

a 

LIB. III. CAP. 8, 

Sed nos ad tertium gradum ilium considerationem refera- 
mus, de quo disserere quod Dominus suggesserit atque tractare 
instituimus. Erit igitur divinarum scripturarum solertissimus 
indagator, qui primo totas legerit, notasque habuerit, etsi non- 
dum intellectu, jam tamen lectione, duntaxat eas quas appel- 
lantur canonicse. Nam caeteras securius leget fide veritatis in- 
structus, ne prasoccupent imbecillem animum, et periculosis 
mendaciis atque phantasmatibus eludentes praejudicent aliquid 
contra sanam intelligentiam. In canonicis autem scripturis Ec- 
clesiarum catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequatur, inter 
quas sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas 
accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis 
canonicis, ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis catho- 
licis, praeponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. In eis vero quae 
non accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas quas plures gravior- 
esque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis Ec- 
clesiae tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravior- 
ibus haberi, quanquam hoc invenire non possit, aequalis tamen 
authoritatis eas habendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum 
in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus,his libris conti- 
netur. Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Nu- 
meris, Deuteronomio, et uno libro lesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno 
libello qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis ad regnorum principia vi- 
detur pertinere. Deinde quatuor Regum et duobus Para- 
lipomenon, non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adjunctis si- 
mulque pergentibus. Haoc est historia quae sibimet annexa 
tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum. Sunt aliae tanquam ex 
diverso ordine, quae neque huic ordini, neque inter se connect- 
untur, sicut est Job et Tobias et Hester et Judith et Mac- 



APPENDIX. 345 

cabaeonim libri duo, et Esdree duo, qui magis subsequi videntur 
ordinatam illam historiam, usque ad Regnorum vel Paralipome- 
non terminatam. Delude Prophetae, in quibus David unus liber 
Psalmoriim et Salomouis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica cantico- 
rum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libn, unus qui Sapientia, 
et alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quadam similitudine 
Salomonis esse dicuntur. Nam Jesus filius Sirach eos scripsisse 
constantissime perhibetur. Qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem 
recipi meruerunt, inter Propheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui 
sunt eorum libri qui proprie Prophetae appellati sunt, du- 
odecim Prophetarum libri singuli ; qui connexi sibimet, quo- 
niam nunquam sejuncti sunt pro uno habentur. Quorum pro- 
phetarum nomina sunt hsec, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Mi- 
cliEeas, Naum, Abacuk,Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias. 
Deinde quatuor Prophetae sunt majorum voluminum, Esaias, 
Hieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel. His quadragintaquatuor libris vete- 
ris testamenti terminatur authoritas. Novi autem quatuor libris 
Evangelii secundum Matthaeum, secundum Marcum, secundum 
Lucam, secundum Joannem ; quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli Apos- 
toli, ad Romanos, ad Corinthios duabus, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios, 
ad Philippenses, ad Thessalonicenses duabus, ad Colossenses, 
ad Timotheum duabus, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos, 
Petri duabus, tribus Joannis, una Judae, et una Jacobi, Actibus 
Apostolorum libro uno, et Apocalypsis Joannis libro uno. 



NOTE C. (Page 123.) 

PASSAGE FROM TERTULLIAN. 

The original of this passage is as follows; "Age jam, qui vo- 
les curiositatem meUus exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre 
Ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae praesident: 
apud quas ipsae authenticce literce eorum recitantur, sonantes vo- 
cem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujuscunque. Proxima est 
tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, 
habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes Asiam tendere, 
babes Ephesum. Si autem Italise adjaces, habes Romam unde 
nobis quoque auctoritas prajsto est." — De Prcescrip. cap. 36. 



NOTED. (Page 131.) 

PASSAGE FROM EUSEBIUS. 

The Order of the Gospels. 

Let us now also show the undisputed writings of the same apostle, 
[John.] And of these his gospel, so well known in the churches 
throughout the world, must first of all be acknowledged as genuine. 
That it is, however, with good reason, placed the fourth in order by 



346 APPENDIX. 

the ancients, may be made evident in the following manner. Those 
inspired and truly pious men, the apostles of Christ, as they were 
most pure in their life, and adorned with every kind of virtue in 
their minds, but unskilled in language, relying upon the divine 
and wonderful energy granted them by the Saviour, neither knew 
how nor attempted to propound the doctrines of their master, 
with the art and refinement of composition. But employing only 
the demonstration of the divine Spirit, working with them, and 
the wonder-working power of Christ, displayed through them, 
they proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven through- 
out the world. They bestow'ed but little care upon the study of 
style, and this they did because they were aided by a co-operation 
greater than that of men. Paul, indeed, who was the most able 
of all in the preparations of style, and who was most powerful in 
sentiments, committed nothing more to writing than a few very 
short epistles. And this too, although he had innumerable mys- 
terious matters that he might have communicated, as he had at- 
tained even to the view of the third heavens, had been taken up 
to the very paradise of God, and had been honoured to hear the 
unutterable words there. The other followers of our Lord were 
also not ignorant of such things, as the twelve apostles, and the 
seventy disciples, together with many others ; yet of all the dis- 
ciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us re- 
corded comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it 
from necessity. Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel 
in Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, com- 
mitted it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the 
want of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark 
and Luke had already published their gospels, they say that John, 
who during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without 
writing, at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion. 
The three gospels previously written, having been distributed 
among all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them, 
giving his testimony to their truth ; but that there was only want- 
ing in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ, 
among the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the 
gospel. And this was the truth. For it is evident that the other 
three evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year 
after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and intimated this in 
the very beginning of their history. For after the fasting of forty 
days, and the consequent temptation, Matthew indeed specifies the 
time of his history, in these words : " But hearing that John was de- 
livered up, he returned from Judea into Galilee." Mark in like 
manner writes : " But after John was delivered up, Jesus came in- 
to Galilee." And Luke, before he commenced the deeds of Jesus, 
in much the same way designates the time, saying, " Herod thus 
added yet this wickedness above all he had committed, that 
he shut up John in prison." For these reasons the apostle John, 
it is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of 
the time not recorded by the former evangelists, and the deeds 
done by our Saviour, which they have passed by, (for these were 
the events that occurred before the imprisonment of John,) and 
this very fact is intimated by him, when he says, "this beginning 
of miracles Jesus made ;" and then proceeds to make mention 
of the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at 



APPENDIX. 347 

that time " baptizing at Jilnon near Salim." He plainly also 
shows this in the words, " John was not yet cast into prison." 
The apostle, therefore, in his gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus be- 
fore the Baptist was cast intoprison, but the other three evange- 
lists mention the circumstances after that event. One who at- 
tends to these circumstances can no longer entertain the opinion, 
that the gospels are at variance with each other, as the gospel of 
John comprehends the first events of Christ, but the others, the 
history that took place at the latter part of the time. It is pro- 
bable, therefore, that for these reasons John has passed by in 
silence the genealogy of our Lord, because it was written by 
Matthew and Luke, but that he commenced with the doctrine of 
the divinity, as a part reserved for him by the divine Spirit, as if 
for a superior. Let this suffice to be said respecting the gospel 
of John. The causes that induced Mark to write his have already 
been stated. But Luke also in the commencement of his narra- 
tive, premises the cause which led him to write, showing that 
many others, having rashly undertaken to compose a narration 
of matters that he had already completely ascertained, in order 
to free us from the uncertain suppositions of others, in his own 
gospel, he delivered the certain account of those things, that he 
himself had fully received from his intimacy and stay with Paul, 
and also his intercourse with the other apostles. But this may 
sufiice respecting these. At a more proper time we shall endea- 
vour also to state, by a reference to some of the ancient writers, 
what others have said respecting the sacred books. But besides 
the gospel of John, his first epistle is acknowledged without dis- 
pute, both by those of the present day, and also by the ancients. 
The other two epistles, however, are disputed. The opinions re- 
specting the Revelation are still greatly divided. But we shall, in 
due time, give a judgment on this point also from the testimony 
of the ancients. 



The Sacred Scriptures achnoioledged as genuine, and those 
that are not. 

This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary 
statement of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. 
And here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of 
the gospels ; these are followed by " the book of the Acts of the 
Apostles:" after this must be mentioned the epistles of Paul, 
which are followed by the acknowledged first epistle of John, as 
also the first of Peter, to be admitted in like manner. After these 
are to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning 
which we shall offer the different opinions in due time. These, then, 
are acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although 
they are well known and approved by many, is reputed tiiat called 
the epistles of James and Jude; also the" Second Epistle of Peter," 
and those called " the Second and Third of John," whether they 
are of the evangelist or of some other of the same name. Among 
the spurious must be numbered both the books called " the Acts 
of Paul" and that called "Pastor," and "the Revelation of 



348 APPENDIX. 

Peter." Besides these, the books called " the Epistle of Barna- 
bas,',' and what are called ''the Institutions of the Apostles." 
Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, " the Reve- 
lation of John," vphich some, as before said, reject, but others 
rank among the genuine. But there are also some who number 
among these the gospel according to the Hebrews, with which 
those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly 
delighted. These may be said to be all concerning which there 
is any dispute. We have, however, necessarily subjoined here a 
catalogue of these also, in order to distinguish those that are true, 
genuine, and well authenticated writings, from those others which 
are not only not embodied in the Canon, but likewise disputed, 
notwithstanding that they are recognized by most ecclesiastical 
writers. Thus we may have it in our power to know both these 
books, and those that are adduced by the heretics under the name 
of the apostles, such, viz., as compose the gospels of Peter, Tho- 
mas and Matthew, and others beside them, or such as contain the 
Acts of the Apostles, by Andrew, and John, and others, of which 
no one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has con- 
descended to make any mention in his works ; and indeed the 
character of the style itself is very different from that of the 
apostles, and the sentiments, and the purport of those things that 
are advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound 
orthodoxy, evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical 
men ; whence they are to be ranked not only among the spurious 
writings, but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious. 
Eccles. Hist. lib. Hi. cap. xxiv. xxv. 



NOTE E. (Page 163.) 

GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES. 

There is no apocryphal book of the New Testament which has 
been so much spoken of, both by the ancients and moderns, as 
the gospel of the Nazarenes. By some, not only of the Roman- 
ists, but also of the Protestants, it has been exalted very nearly 
to an equality with the canonical books of the New Testament. 
It seems necessary, therefore, to examine its claims with more 
attention than is requisite in the case of other books of this 
class. 

This gospel was known among the ancients under several dif- 
ferent titles. It was sometimes called " the gospel according to 
the twelve apostles ;" " the gospel of Bartholomew ;" " the gospel 
according to the Hebrews ;" " the gospel of the Ebionites," &c. 

It is the opinion of some that this is the gospel to which Paul 
alludes. Gal. i. 6, where he speaks of " another gospel." How- 
ever this may be, if we credit Eusebius, we must believe that it 
existed as early as the beginning of the second century ; for he 
represents Hegesippus as writing some things concerning " the 
gospel according to the Hebrews and Syrians." 

* Ecc. Hist. lib. iv. p. 58. 



APPENDIX. 349 

Clement of Alexandria* cites from it the following passage: 
*' He who admires shall reign, and he who reigns shall be at 
ease " 

Origen speaks of it in this manner, " If any one will receive 
the gospel according to the Hebrews, in which our Saviour says, 
* The Holy Ghost my mother lately took me by one of my hairs, 
and led me to the great mountain of Thabor.' " And in another 
place, " it is written in a certain gospel, which is entitled accord- 
ing to the Hebrews, (if any one be pleased to receive it, not as of 
authority, but only for illustration of the present question,) 'Acer- 
tain rich man said to Christ, What good thing shall I do that I 
may inherit life? He said to him, O man, keep the law and the 
prophets ; he answered him, That I have done. He said to him, 
Go sell all things that thou hast, and distribute among the poor, 
and come and follow me. The rich man hereupon began to 
scratch his head, and was displeased. And the Lord said unto 
him, How can you say that you have kept the law and the pro- 
phets, seeing it is written in the law. Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself; but behold, many of thy brethren, children of 
Abraham, are clothed with nastiness, and ready to perish for 
hunger, while thy home abounds with all sorts of delicacies, and 
nothing is sent out of it to them. And turning about, he said to 
his disciple Simon, who sat by him, Simon, son of Joanna, it is 
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a 
rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.' "f 

Eusebius, speaking of apocryphal and spurious books, says, 
" In this number some have placed the gospel according to the 
Hebrews, with which they of the Jews who profess Christianity 
are very much delighted." And speaking of the Ebionites, he 
says, " They made use only of that which is called the gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews, very little esteeming any others. "J 

Epiphanius has left several testimonies respecting this gospel, 
among which are the following : " The Nazarenes have the gospel 
of Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language ; for this is still 
preserved among them, as it was at first, in Hebrew characters. 
But I know not whether they have taken away the genealogy 
from Abraham to Christ. 

In another place, speaking of the Ebionites, he says, " They 
also receive the gospel according to Matthew. For this both 
they and the Corinthians make use of, and no other. They call 
it the gospel according to the Hebrews ; for the truth is, that 
Matthew is the only one of the New Testament writers who pub- 
lished his gospel and preaching, in the Hebrew language and 
Hebrew characters." 

And again, " In that gospel which they (the Ebionites) have 
called, according to St. Matthew, which is not entire and perfect, 
but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call the Hebrew 
gospel, it is written, * That there was a certain man called Jesus, 
and he being about thirty years of age, made choice of us. And 
coming to Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simcn called 
Peter, and opening his mouth, said. When I passed by the lake 
of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and 

*■ Strom. Hb. ii. p. 380. f Horn, in Jerem. 

X Ecc. Hist. Ub. ill. c. 25, 27. 
30 



350 APPENDIX. 

Simon and Andrew, and Thaddeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas 
Iscariot, and thee Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, I 
called, and thou didst follow me. I will therefore that ye be my 
twelve apostles, for a testimony to Israel.' .... The meat 
of John the Baptist, according to this gospel, was wild honej^the 
taste of which was lilie manna, or as cakes made with honey and 
oil. Thus they change the true account into a falsehood, and for 
locusts put cakes made with oil and honey." " The beginning 
of the gospel was this, ' It came to pass in the days of Herod,' " 
&c. After relating the baptism of Christ, as it is recorded in the 
other gospel, except that it asserts, that the voice from heaven 
saying, ' This is my beloved Son,' &c., was repeated, it goes on to 
say, ' That hereupon John fell down before him, and said, O Lord, 
I pray thee baptize me ; but he hindered him, saying that it is fit 
that all these things should be fulfilled.' "• See," says Epiphanius, 
" how their false doctrine appears everywhere ; how all things are 
imperfect, disordered, and without any truth!" So also Cerin- 
thus and Carpocrates, using this same gospel of theirs, would 
prove that Christ proceeded from the seed of Joseph and Mary."* 
But the testimony of Jerome respecting this gospel is the most full. 
" Matthew, also called Levi," says he, "' who became from a pub- 
lican an apostle, was the first who composed a gospel of Christ, 
and for the sake of those who believed in Christ among the Jews, 
wrote it in the Hebrew language and letters, but it is uncertain 
who translated it into Greek. Moreover, the Hebrew copy is to 
this time preserved in tlie library of Caesarea, which Pamphilus 
the martyr with much diligence collected. The Nazarenes, who 
live in Beroea, a city of Syria, and made use of this volume, 
granted me the favour of writing it out. In which gospel there 
is this observable, that wherever the evangelist either cites him- 
self, or introduces our Saviour as citing, any passage out of the 
Old Testament, he does not follow the translation of the LXX, 
but the Hebrew copies, of which there are these two instances, 
viz. 'Out of Egypt have I called my Son;' and, 'He shall be 
called a Nazarene.' " This testimony is found in Jerome's life 
of Matthew. And in his life of James we find the following ac- 
count, " The gospel also, which is called according to the He- 
brews, and which I lately translated into Greek and Latin, and 
which Origen often used relates, ' That after our Saviour's re- 
surrection, when our Lord had given the linen cloth to the priest's 
servant, he went to James and appeared to him ; for James had 
sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he 
drank the cup of the Lord, till he should see the Lord risen from 
the dead. And a little after the Lord said, ' Bring the table and 
the bread ;' and then it is added, ' He took the bread and blessed 
it, and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him. 
My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from the 
dead.' " 

And in a work against Pelagius, he says, " In the gospel ac- 
cording to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldo-Syriac 
language, which the Nazarenes use, and is that according to the 
twelve apostles, or as most think, according to Matthew, which is 
m the library of Csesarea, there is the following history : ' Behold 

* Epiph. Hteres. 



APPENDIX. 351 

the mother and brethren of Christ spake to him ; John the Bap- 
tist baptizes for the remission of sins ; let us go and be baptized 
of him. He said, In what have I sinned, that 1 have need to go 
and be baptized of him ? Unless my saying this proceeds, per- 
haps, from ignorance.' And in the same gospel it is said, ' If thy 
brother offend thee by any vi^ord, and make thee satisfaction, if it 
be seven times in a day, thou must forgive him. Simon his dis- 
ciple said unto him, What! seven times in a day.f" The Lord 
answered and said unto him, I tell thee also till seventy times 
seven.' " 

The same author, in his commentary on Isaiah, mentions this 
gospel in the following manner: "According to their gospel, 
which is written in the Hebrew language, and read by the Naza- 
renes, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended upon him. 
Besides, in that gospel just mentioned we find these things writ- 
ten. ' It came to pass when the Lord ascended from the waters, 
the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended and rested upon 
him, and said to him, My son, among (or during the time of) all 
the prophets, I was waiting for thy coming, that I might rest 
upon thee ; thou art my first begotten Son, who shall reign to 
everlasting ages.' " 

And in his commentary on Ezekiel, " In that which is entitled 
the gospel according to the Hebrews, it is reckoned among the 
chief of crimes for a person to make sorrowful the heart of his 
brother." 

In his commentary on the gospel of Matthew he has the follow- 
ing : " In the gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, 
which I lately translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which 
is by most esteemed the authentic gospel of Matthew, the man 
who had the withered hand is said to be a mason, and prayed for 
relief in the following words : ' I was a mason, who got my liveli- 
hood by my hands ; 1 beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst re- 
store me to my strength, that I may no longer thus scandalously 
beg my bread.' " 

" In the gospel which the Nazarenes use, for the son of Bara- 
chiah, I find written, the son of Jehoiada." " In this gospel we 
read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that a lintel or 
beam of a prodigious size fell down," " In the Hebrew gospel 
we read, that our Lord said to his disciples, ' Be ye never cheer- 
ful, unless when you can see your brother in love.' " 

Concerning this gospel according to the Hebrews, very differ- 
ent opinions have been expressed by learned men. Some have 
even pretended, that if it was now in existence it would be greatly 
superior to the Greek copy, but generally it has been considered 
apocryphal, for very good reasons, some of which I will now set 
down. 

1. It was never received by any of the Fathers as canonical, 
or cited as of any authority, by any writer, during the first four 
centuries. 

For full proof of the fact here stated, I would refer the reader 
to Jones on the Canon, vol. iii. 

2. This gospel was apocryphal, because it contained several 
things contrary to known and undoubted truths. Of this sort are 
the passages which have been cited respecting Christ's manner 
of speaking, in regard to the baptism of John. Also the account 



352 APPENDIX. 

which it contains of the oath of the apostle James ; for it is evi- 
dent that the disciples knew nothing of Christ's resurrection from 
the dead until after that event occurred. 

3. A third argument of the apocryphal character of this gospel, 
is derived from the ludicrous and silly relations which it con- 
tains — as that of the rich man scratching his head, and the Holy 
Ghost taking up Christ by one of his hairs, and carrying him to 
the great mountain Tabor, &c. 

The most probable opinion of the origin of this gospel is, that 
it was a corruption of the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, 
by the Ebionites. These heretics having this gospel in their pos- 
session, and having departed from the true faith, mutilated the 
gospel of Matthew, by striking out such things as were unfavour- 
able to their heresy, and adding such fabulous stories as suited 
their purpose. Of the fragments which remain, there is not one 
which agrees exactly with the authentic gospel of Matthew. 
Epiphanius expressly asserts, that the Ebionites used the gospel 
of Matthew alone, and that in Hebrew, but not entire, but cor- 
rupted and adulterated ; and that they had taken away the gene- 
alogy from the beginning, and commenced their gospel with these 
words, " And it came to" pass in the days of Herod," &c. 



NOTE F. (Page 280.) 



THE DECREE OF POPE GELASIUS CONCERNING APOCRYPHAL 
BOOKS. 

1. The Travels under the name of Peter, which is also called 
the Eight Books of St. Clemens. 2. The Acts under the name 
of Andrew the apostle. 3. The Acts under the name of Philip 
the apostle. 4. The Acts under the name of Peter. 5. The Acts 
under the name of Thomas the apostle 6. The gospel under the 
name of Thaddeus. 7. The gospel under the name of Thomas 
the apostle. 8. The gospel under the name of Barnabas. 9. The 
gospel under the name of Bartholomew. 10. The gospel under 
the name of Andrew the apostle. 11. The gospels corrupted by 
Lucianus. 12. The gospels corrupted by Hesychius. 13. The 
gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour. 14. The book of the Nati- 
vity of our Saviour. 15. The book called the Shepherd. 16. AH 
the books made by Lentitius the disciple of the devil. 17. The 
Acts of Paul and Thecla. 18. The Revelation of Thomas. 
19. The Revelation of Paul. 20. The Revelation of Stephen. 
21. The travels or acts of Mary. 22. The book called the Lots 
of the Apostles. 23. The book called the Praise of the Apostles. 
24. The book of the Canon of the Apostles. 25. The Letter of 
Jesus to king Abgarus — are apocryphal. 



APPENDIX. 353 

NOTE a. (Page 287.) 
Paul's epistle to the laodiceans. 

Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus 
Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea. Grace be to you, 
and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I 
thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue and per- 
severe in good works, looking for that which is promised in the 
day of judgment. 

Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you, who pervert the 
truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the gospel 
which I have preached. And now may God grant that my con- 
verts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the gos- 
pel, be beneficent, and doing good works, which accompany sal- 
vation. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are mani- 
fest, in which 1 rejoice and am glad. For I know that this rhall 
turn to my salvation for ever, which shall be through your prayer, 
and the supply of the Holy Spirit; whether I live or die; (for) 
to me to live shall be a hfe to Christ, to die will be joy. And our 
Lord will grant us his mercy, that ye may have the same love, 
and be likeminded. 

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have heard of the coming of the 
Lord, so think and act in fear, and it shall be to you life eternal ; 
for it is God who worketh in you ; and do all things without sin. 
And what is best, my beloved, rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
and avoid all filthy lucre. Let all your requests be made known 
to God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ. And whatsoever 
things are sound, and true, and of good report, and chaste, and 
just, and lovely, these things do. Those things which ye have 
heard and received, think on these things, and peace shall be 
with you. . And all the saints salute you. The grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. 

Cause this epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the epistle 
of the Colossians to be read among you. 



NOTE H. (Page 292.) 



miracles ascribed to CHRIST IN THE BOOK ENTITLED 
"the gospel of our saviour's INFANCY.'' 

Christ is represented as speaking in the cradle, and telling his 
mother that he was her son. 

The swaddUng clothes in which he was wrapt, when thrown 
into the fire, would not burn. When his parents entered Egypt, 
in their flight from the cruelty of Herod, the girth of the saddle 
on which Mary rode broke, and the great idol of Egypt fell down 
at the approach of the infant Jesus. 
30* 



354 APPENDIX. 

By means of the babe's swaddling clothes, several devils were 

cast out of a boy's mouth, in the shape of crows and serpents. 

A company of robbers, at the approach of Jesus, were fright- 
ened by being made to hear a sound, as of an army, &;c. 

It is related, that a girl was cured of a leprosy by means of 
water in which Christ's body had been washed. 

That a young man, who by witchcraft had been turned into a 
mule, was, upon Christ's mounting him, turned again into a man. 

On one occasion he is said to have turned certain boys, who hid 
themselves from him, into kids, and then at the intercession of 
their mothers restored them again to their proper shape. 

A boy having put his hand into a partridge's nest, to take out 
the eggs, was bit by a serpent, whereupon they brought him to 
Jesus, who directed them to carry him before him, to the place 
where he had received the injury. On coming to tlae spot, Jesus 
called for the serpent, and it presently came forth ; and he said, 
" Go and suck out the poison which thou hast infused into that 
boy :" so the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison 
again. He also cures his brother James, who, in gathering sticks, 
was bitten by a viper. 

Being one day on the house-top, playing with some boys, one of 
them fell down, and was instantly killed. And the boy's relations 
came and said to the Lord Jesus, " Thou didst throw our son 
down from the house-top ;" but he denied it, and said, " Let us go 
and ask himself." Then the Lord Jesus, going down, stood over 
the dead body, and said with a loud voice, " Zeinunus, Zeinunus, 
who threw thee down ?" Then the dead boy answered, " Thou 
didst not throw me down, but such a one." 

Being, on a certain occasion, sent by his mother to the well for 
water, the pitcher broke, and he gathered up the water in his 
garment, and brought it to her. 

When at the age of twelve years Jesus was at Jerusalem, a 
certain astronomer asked him whether he had studied astronomy. 
Upon which he told him the number of the spheres and heavenly 
bodies, &c. There was there also a philosopher, who asked the 
Lord Jesus whether he had ever studied physic. He replied, and 
explained to him physics and metaphysics, the powers of the 
body, its anatomy, &c. But from this time he began to conceal 
his miracles, and gave himself to the study of the law, till he ar- 
rived to the end of his thirtieth year. 

See the " Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy," complete in the 
second volume of Jones on the Canon. 



APPENDIX. 355 



EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY 



" It has been asserted that ' the question of the Canon is a point 
of erudition, not of divine revelation.' This is to undermine both 
the certainty and the importance of the sacred Canon. The as- 
sertion, that the question of the Canon is not a point of revela- 
tion, is false. It is not true either of the Old Testament or of the 
New. The integrity of the Canon of the Old Testament is a 
matter of revelation, as much as anything contained in the Bible. 
This is attested, as has been shown, by the whole nation of the 
Jews, to whom it was committed ; and their fidelity to the truth 
has been avouched by the Lord and his apostles. Is not this re- 
velation .? The integrity of the Canon of the New Testament is 
equally a point of revelation. As God had said to the Jews, 'Ye 
are my witnesses,' and as they ' received the lively oracles to 
give unto us,' Acts vii. 38, so the Lord Jesus said to the apostles, 
' Ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem and all Judea, 
and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.' The 
first churches received the New Testament Scriptures from these 
witnesses of the Lord, and thus had inspired authority for those 
books. It was not left to erudition or reasoning to collect that 
they were a revelation from God. This the first Christians knew 
from the testimony of those who wrote them. They could not be 
more assured that the things taught were from God, than they 
were that the writings which contained them were from God. 
The integrity of the sacred Canon is, then, a matter of revela- 
tion, conveyed to us by testimony, like everything contained in 
the Scriptures. 

" While it has been denied that the question of the Canon is a 
point of revelation, it has been asserted that it is a point of eru- 
dition. But erudition has nothing farther to do with the question, 
than as it may be employed in conveying to us the testimony. 
Erudition did not produce the revelation of the Canon. If the 
Canon had not been a point of revelation, erudition could never 
have made it so — for erudition can create nothing ; it can only in- 
vestigate and confirm truth, and testify to that which exists, or 
detect error. We receive the Canon of Scripture by revelation, 
in the same way that the Jews received the Law which was given 
from Mount Sinai. Only one generation of the Jews witnessed 
the giving of the Law, but to all future generations of that people 
it was equally a matter of revelation. The knowledge of this 
was conveyed to them by testimony. In the same way Christians, 
in their successive generations, received the Scripture as a mat- 
ter of revelation. The testimony through which this is received, 
must, indeed, be translated from a foreign language ; but so must 
the account brought to us of any occurrence, the most trivial, 
that takes place in a foreign country. If in this sense the ques- 
tion of the Canon be called a point of erudition, the gospel itself 
must be called a point of erudition ; for it, too, must be translated 
from the original language in which it was announced, as also 



356 APPENDIX. 

must everything which the Scriptures contain. When a preacher 
inculcates the belief of the gospel, or of a doctrine of Scripture, 
or obedience to any duty, would he be warranted in telling his 
audience that these are questions of erudition, not of divine reve- 
lation? Erudition may be allowed its full value, without sus- 
pending on it the authority of the word of God. 

" The assertion that the question of the Canon is a point of eru- 
dition, not of divine revelation, is subversive of the whole of reve- 
lation. We have no way of knowing that the miracles related in 
the Scriptures were wrought, and that the doctrines inculcated 
were taught, but by testimony and the internal evidence of the 
books themselves. We have the evidence of miracles, as that 
evidence comes to us by the testimony which vouches the authen- 
ticity of the inspired books. As far as the genuineness and au- 
thenticity of any book are brought into suspicion, so far is every- 
thing contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should always 
be remembered, that there is no greater absurdity than to ques- 
tion the claim of a book to a place in the Canon, and at the same 
time to acknowledge its contents to be a revelation from God. 
There can be no evidence that the doctrines of Scripture are re- 
vealed truths, unless we are certain that the books of Scripture 
are revelation. If the books which compose the Canon are not 
matter of revelation, then we have no revelation. If the truth 
of the Canon be not established to us as matter of revelation, 
then the books of which it is composed are not so established ; 
and if the books be not so, then not one sentence of them, nor 
one doctrine or precept, which they contain, comes established 
to us as a revelation from God. If, then, the question of the 
Canon be a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, so is every 
doctrine which the Scriptures contain ; for the doctrine cannot 
be assured revelation, if the book that contains it be not assured 
revelation. There can be no higher evidence of the doctrine 
being revelation, than of the book that contains it : and thus were 
not the Canon a matter of divine revelation, the whole Bible 
would be stripped of divine authority. Anything, therefore, that 
goes to unsettle the Canon, goes to unsettle every doctrine con- 
tained in the Canon. 

" Without a particular revelation to every individual, it does 
not appear that the authority of the Canon could be ascertained 
to us in any other way than it is at present. The whole of the 
Scriptures was given at first by revelation, and afterwards this 
revelation was confirmed by ordinary means. The testimony 
concerning it has been handed down to the churches from one 
generation to another. On this, and on their own internal char- 
acteristics of being divine, we receive the Scriptures with the 
most unsuspecting confidence, and on the same ground the Jews 
received the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In these ways it 
is fixed by divine authority, and not left in any uncertainty ; for, 
if its truth can be ascertained by ordinary means, it is fixed by 
the authority of God, as much as if an angel from heaven were 
every day to proclaim it over the earth. When Paul says, that 
his handwriting of the salutation was the token in every epistle, 
he at once shows us the importance of the Canon, and warrants 
us in receiving it as a divine revelation attested by ordinary 
means. Those to whom he wrote had no other way of knowing 



APPENDIX. 35*7 

the handwriting of the apostle, than that by which they knew any 
other handwriting. Even at that time the churches knew the 
genuineness of the epistles sent to them by ordinary means ; and 
Paul's authority warrants this as sufficient. We have, then, the 
authority of revelation for resting the Canon on the ordinary 
sources of human evidence, and they are such as to preclude the 
possibility of deception. The claim of the epistles sent to the 
first churches, and of the doctrine they contain as divine, rested 
even to those churches on the same kind of evidence on which 
we now receive them. It is very important to settle what kind 
of evidence is suflBcient for our receiving the Scriptures. Many 
have rated this too high ; and as the Scriptures contain a revela- 
tion, they wished to have them attested to every age by revela- 
tion, which is, in fact, requiring the continuance of miraculous 
interference, which it might easily be shown would be perni- 
cious."— Pp. 147—150. 

" If it should be asked, Should we be precluded from inquiring 
into the grounds on which the Canon is received ? it is replied, 
Certainly not. But we should remember that the permanent 
ground on which it stands is testimony ; and such must be the 
ground of every historical fact- Internal evidence may confirm 
the authenticity of a book sanctioned by the Canon, but to sus- 
pend belief till we receive such confirmation, argues an ignorance 
of the principles of evidence. A book might be inspired, when 
no such internal confirmation, from the nature of the subject, 
might be found. And when a book is substantially approved, by 
testimony, as belonging to the Canon, no evidence can, by a 
Christian, be legitimately supposed possible, in opposition to its 
inspiration. This would be to suppose valid objections to first 
principles. Sufficient testimony deserves the same rank as a first 
principle with axioms themselves. Axioms are not more neces- 
sary than testimony, to all the business of human life. Internal 
evidence may be sufficient to prove that a book is not divine ; but 
it is absurd to suppose that such a book can have valid testimony, 
and therefore it can never be supposed by a Christian, that any 
of those books that are received as part of the sacred Canon, on 
the authority of sufficient testimony, can contain any internal 
marks of imposture. This would be to suppose the possibility of 
the clashing of two first principles. The thing that can be proved 
by a legitimate first principle, can never be disproved by another 
legitimate first principle. This would be to suppose that God is 
not the author of the human constitution. If, then, in a book re- 
cognized by the Canon, as the Song of Solomon, we find matter 
which to our wisdom does not appear to be worthy of inspiration, 
we may be assured that we mistake. For if that book is authen- 
ticated by testimony as a part of the sacred Scriptures, which 
the Lord Jesus Christ sanctioned, it is authenticated by a first 
principle, to which God has bound us, by the constitution of our 
nature, to submit. If, in this instance, or in any particular in- 
stance, we reject it, our own conduct in other things will be our 
condemnation. There is no first principle in the constitution of 
man that can entitle him to reject anything in the Song of Solo- 
mon, coming, as it does, under the sanction of a first principle. 
Those persons who reject any book of the Canon on such grounds, 



358 APPENDIX. 

would show themselves much more rational, as well as more 
humble Christians, if, recognizing the paramount authority of a 
first principle universally acknowledged, they would view the 
Song of Solomon and the book of Esther, as any other part of the 
word of God, and humbly endeavour to gain from them the in- 
struction and edification which, as divine books, they must be 
calculated to give. This questioning of the Canon, then, pro- 
ceeds on infidel and irrational principles, wliich, if carried to their 
legitimate length, must end in complete unbelief." — Pp. 153, 4. 

" It is a wonderful circumstance in the providence of God, that 
while the two parts of Scripture were delivered to two classes, 
with the fullest attestation of their divine original, both the one 
and the other have been faithful in preserving the precious trust 
respectively committed to them, while they have both been rebel- 
lious in regard to that part of which they were not originally ap- 
pointed the depositaries. The Jews always held the books of the 
Old Testament in the highest veneration, and continued to pre- 
serve them, without addition or diminution, until the coming of 
Him concerning whom they testify, and they have kept them en- 
tire to this day ; yet they have altogether rejected the New Tes- 
tament Scriptures. And while Christians have all agreed in pre- 
serving the Scriptures of the New Testament entire and uncor- 
rupted, they have wickedly adulterated those of the Old by a 
spurious addition, or have retrenched certain portions of them. 
Of the divine original of the sacred Scriptures, as we now possess 
them, we have evidence the m.ost abundant and diversified. It is 
the distinguishing characteristic of the gospel, that it is preached 
to the poor, and God has so ordered it, that the authenticity of 
that word by which all are to be judged, should not be presented 
to them as a matter of doubtful disputation. 

" Were there no other evidence of the truth of divine revela- 
tion than the existence of the holy Scriptures, that alone would 
be conclusive. The Bible is not a book compiled by a single au- 
thor, nor by many authors acting in confederacy in the same age, 
in which case it would not be so wonderful to find a just and close 
connection in its several parts. It is the work of between thirty 
and forty writers, in very different conditions of life, from the 
throne and sceptre down to the lowest degree, and in very dis- 
tant ages, during which the world must have put on an entirely 
new appearance, and men must have had different interests to 
pursue. This would have led a spirit of imposture to vary its 
schemes, and to adapt them to different stations in the world, 
and to different fashions and changes in every age. David wrote 
about four hundred years after Moses, and Isaiah about two 
hundred and fifty years after David, and John about eight hun- 
dred years after Isaiah. Yet these authors, with all the other 
prophets and apostles, wrote in perfect harmony — confirming the 
authority of their predecessors, labouring to enforce their in- 
structions, and denouncing the severest judgments on all who 
continued disobedient. Such entire agreement in propounding 
religious truths and principles, difierent from any before or since 

f)romulgated, except by those who have learned from them, estab- 
ishes the divine mission of the writers of the Bible beyond dispute, 
proving that they all derived their wisdom from God, and spake as 



APPENDIX. 359 

they were moved by the Holy Ghost. In all the works of God there 
is an analogy characteristic of his divine hand; and tlie variety 
and harmony that shine so coDspicuously in the heavens and the 
earth, are not farther removed from the suspicion of imposture 
than the unity that, in the midst of boundless variety, reigns in 
that book vvljich reveals the plan of redemption. To forge the 
Bible is as impossible as to forge a world." — i*p. 156, 7. 



THE END 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 165 109 2 



